Opinion ID: 2972810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suppression of Evidence Claim

Text: Eubanks argues on appeal that the searches of the doghouse and outbuilding, as well as his arrest, violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment,1 and therefore his statements and the physical evidence obtained from the searches should have been suppressed. Before reaching the merits of Eubanks’s claim, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction over it. Eubanks did not file any pre-trial motions to suppress the evidence he now asserts was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 1 “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. 3 motions to suppress evidence “must be raised before trial”; otherwise, any objection to admission of the evidence at trial is waived. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C), (e). “We have stated that we are ‘categorically without jurisdiction to hear appeals of suppression issues raised for the first time on appeal.’” United States v. Sheppard, 149 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Yannott, 42 F.3d 999, 1005 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted)); see also United States v. Scarborough, 43 F.3d 1021, 1025 (6th Cir. 1994) (“Constitutional objections ‘that appear for the first time on appeal are conclusively deemed to be waived, with the effect that [the appellate court is] deprived of jurisdiction.’” (citation omitted)). Given his failure to move to suppress, Eubanks has waived any objection to the admission of the evidence at trial. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review his suppression claim.