Author Archives: Hall

CA7: Sexual assault under color of law can state 4A claim under § 1983

A police ride-along with a student led to a sexual assault § 1983 suit. “It is well established that sexual assault by a government official acting under color of law violates the Constitution. Cases from different circuits have relied on … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA7: Sexual assault under color of law can state 4A claim under § 1983

VA: “[U]nder the Fourth Amendment, probable cause of contraband is the standard to obtain a warrant, not the standard to search a person without one.”

“The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search fits under an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. While the exceptions are many, mere probable cause to arrest is not one of them. Nor can … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off on VA: “[U]nder the Fourth Amendment, probable cause of contraband is the standard to obtain a warrant, not the standard to search a person without one.”

E.D.Mich.: The tip was anonymous, but it was corroborated by investigation

The initial tip about defendant being a drug dealer was anonymous, but officers investigated to corroborate it. “Detectives went to the address associated with the phone number provided by the anonymous source, observed activity which they believed was consistent with … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: The tip was anonymous, but it was corroborated by investigation

OH12: Protective sweeps didn’t require consent

The protective sweep didn’t require consent. Moreover, the argument wasn’t preserve below. State v. Mott, 2023-Ohio-2268 (12th Dist. July 3, 2023).* Based on the totality, it was objectively reasonable to believe defendant was speeding when the officer decided to stop … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Immigration arrests, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH12: Protective sweeps didn’t require consent

Cal.2: Geofence warrant issued before any case law showed PC, particularly, and good faith

Geofence warrant issued in 2019 before there were any reported cases satisfied probable cause, particularity, and the good faith exception. Price v. Superior Court, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 505 (2d Dist. July 3, 2023):

Posted in geofence, Good faith exception, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on Cal.2: Geofence warrant issued before any case law showed PC, particularly, and good faith

D.P.R.: Indicted fugitive can have standing in a place even using an alias

Defendant being an unindicted fugitive using a false name still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place he was staying. This is different from the government’s authority involving convicted escapees. United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Indicted fugitive can have standing in a place even using an alias

OH5: Pickup of visitor parked on street could be searched with SW for premises where it was suspected of drug transactions there

Defendant’s pickup was parked on the street in front of another man’s house that was searched with a warrant. His truck was searched too, but wasn’t mentioned in the warrant. “We find the search of the truck was authorized by … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on OH5: Pickup of visitor parked on street could be searched with SW for premises where it was suspected of drug transactions there

S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

Plaintiff’s suit in federal court to cause state court to apply the exclusionary rule in state court is barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman. Chappel v. Adams Cnty. Child.’s Servs., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112877 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2023). Defendant’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Federal suit to force state court to apply exclusionary rule barred by Younger and Rooker/Feldman

D.Mont.: Nervousness alone not enough to extend stop

Defendant’s stop was unreasonably extended without reasonable suspicion. A DL and EPIC check on both driver and passenger came up clean, and the stop should have ended then. Nervousness alone wasn’t enough. United States v. Funk, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Nervousness alone not enough to extend stop

E.D.Cal.: “No viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant.”

“No viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant. See AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (‘so long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Consent, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: “No viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant.”

OH4: Entry to recover AR-15 was reasonable, even though it was hard to find

Officers responding to a 911 call were told there was an unsecured AR-15 in the house. The entry to retrieve it was reasonable, and Caniglia v. Strom is distinguishable. State v. Pine, 2023-Ohio-2191, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2166 (4th Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH4: Entry to recover AR-15 was reasonable, even though it was hard to find

NJ: SW for realtime updates from a Facebook account was a virtual wiretap that had to comply with state wiretap law

The state had a warrant for updates every 15 minutes of two Facebook accounts. That was virtually a wiretap, and the state wiretapping law applies. Facebook, Inc. v. State, 2023 N.J. LEXIS 700 (June 29, 2023). From the syllabus:

Posted in Social media warrants | Comments Off on NJ: SW for realtime updates from a Facebook account was a virtual wiretap that had to comply with state wiretap law

TX1: 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette

A 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette. Small v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4610 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) June 29, 2023)* (unpublished) “These events establish probable cause, especially when … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TX1: 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette

M.D.Ala.: Failure to back up CI made SW lack PC

Relying on a CI without backing him up failed to show probable cause. “With these guiding principles in mind, the undersigned concludes the search warrant affidavit here did not provide a substantial basis for finding probable cause to believe narcotics … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Informant hearsay, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Failure to back up CI made SW lack PC

N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

“If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

MO: Virginia v. Moore does not require officer see the crime to have PC for arrest outside jurisdiction

Virginia v. Moore does not require that an arresting officer personally have seen the act that led to the arrest outside the officer’s jurisdiction as long as there was probable cause. State v. Barton, 2023 Mo. LEXIS 183 (June 27, … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonableness, Staleness | Comments Off on MO: Virginia v. Moore does not require officer see the crime to have PC for arrest outside jurisdiction

TX: Def had no REP in work truck searched by owner at police request three days after his arrest and expiration of SW

Recognizing that Byrd holds that a person can have standing in a vehicle owned and maybe even operated by another: “Does an employee retain standing to contest a search or seizure in his work vehicle several days after he was … Continue reading →

Posted in Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on TX: Def had no REP in work truck searched by owner at police request three days after his arrest and expiration of SW

D.Vt.: Hiding a fanny pack in a trash can from the police was abandonment without evidence of intent to recover it

Defendant put a fanny pack in a trash can when the police were around. Without evidence he intended to retrieve it, it is treated as abandoned property that he has no standing in. United States v. Moffitt, 2023 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Vt.: Hiding a fanny pack in a trash can from the police was abandonment without evidence of intent to recover it

CA7: Claim of excessive force in arrest by federal agent does not state new type of Bivens claim

A claim of excessive force during an arrest by a federal agent does not state a new type of Bivens claim, and it can proceed. Snowden v. Henning, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16221 (7th Cir. June 27, 2023). (This was … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Custody, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA7: Claim of excessive force in arrest by federal agent does not state new type of Bivens claim

GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial

Defendant’s refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial. Post-arrest cheek swabs do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they are accepted police booking and jailing procedures, similar to fingerprinting and photographing. … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial