Author Archives: Hall

MI: Trees on undeveloped land were not “effects” for 4A

A city ordinance regulating trees was not a Fourth Amendment seizure because the trees were not on the curtilage of a home and weren’t independently subject to the Fourth Amendment. (Otherwise, a taking occurred, and that’s way outside the scope … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Nexus, Open fields | Comments Off on MI: Trees on undeveloped land were not “effects” for 4A

FL2: Def’s mental health seizure was unreasonable under state law; his search incident thus was unreasonable

Defendant’s mental health seizure didn’t comply with state law and was unreasonable. There was no face-to-face meeting to evaluate his condition required by law. His girlfriend had reported that he was sending suicidal text messages. K.M. v. State, 2023 Fla. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Probation / Parole search, Search incident | Comments Off on FL2: Def’s mental health seizure was unreasonable under state law; his search incident thus was unreasonable

M.D.Fla.: Geofence SW decided on GFE alone

In this Hobbs Act robbery case, ATF got a geofence warrant to attempt to isolate who was committing a string of robberies in the Tampa Bay area. Instead of even considering the merits, the court goes directly to the good … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Geofence SW decided on GFE alone

CA6: Entry onto driveway didn’t violate curtilage

Officers’ entry onto plaintiff’s driveway did not violate curtilage. Habich v. Wayne Cty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8868 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023). No reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of trash cans left at the curb for collection. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA6: Entry onto driveway didn’t violate curtilage

Cal.2: Geofence warrant was a bit overbroad, but GFE still applies

A geofence warrant was sought in 2019 for Google which provided several subject phones in the vicinity of a murder. The court finds the warrant was not particular enough, but applies the good faith exception because geofence warrants were so … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, geofence, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on Cal.2: Geofence warrant was a bit overbroad, but GFE still applies

E.D.Pa.: Homeowner can be handcuffed during home search without his being arrested

Having the homeowner in handcuffs during a search of his house and then releasing him when done is reasonable under Michigan v. Summers. Armstrong v. Gretsky, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63028 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2023). Defendant parolee tried to … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Homeowner can be handcuffed during home search without his being arrested

Cal.4: Misdemeanants stated claim that DNA testing of them was a violation of state right of privacy

Plaintiffs stated a claim that the Orange County program for collection of DNA from misdemeanants violated their right to privacy. There may be instances were a misdemeanor may be a “serious crime” but in general, no. The trial court erred … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, DNA, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on Cal.4: Misdemeanants stated claim that DNA testing of them was a violation of state right of privacy

AR: Failure to argue against GFE below bars argument on appeal

Failure to challenge application of the good faith exception in the trial court on running the LPN through insurance database precludes challenging it on appeal. Erby v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 220, 2023 Ark. App. LEXIS 211 (April 12, 2023). … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Good faith exception, Standing, Waiver | Comments Off on AR: Failure to argue against GFE below bars argument on appeal

NV: A-C privilege reason for return of documents

Attorney-client privilege is reason for return of documents under F.R.Crim.P. 41(g), and Nevada recognizes that, too, regardless of whether there is an open investigation. In re Search Warrants Regarding Seizure of Documents, 2023 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 131 (Apr. 7, … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Hot pursuit, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on NV: A-C privilege reason for return of documents

D.Minn.: Def didn’t show prejudice or unreasonableness from execution of SW before 6 am

Even if the search warrant was executed here before 6 a.m., defendant doesn’t show any prejudice by that. A cell phone is not exigency in itself, but here there was at least some risk of destruction of evidence because defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Nighttime search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Def didn’t show prejudice or unreasonableness from execution of SW before 6 am

E.D.Mo.: Despite initial deception from officers, cell phone search was by consent

“Even when Sgt. Sublette’s initial deception is considered, the totality of the circumstances amount to voluntary consent by Carron. At the time of the encounter, Carron was a 44-year-old man who appeared to be reasonably intelligent with prior experience in … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep, Voluntariness | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Despite initial deception from officers, cell phone search was by consent

NYT: A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again

NYT: A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again by Steve Lohr (“Previous advances in A.I. inspired predictions that the law was the lucrative profession most likely to suffer job losses. It didn’t happen. Is this time different?”):

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NYT: A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again

DE: Uncorroborated CI doesn’t provide PC

The CI was not sufficiently corroborated, and it thus fails to show probable cause. State v. Mason, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 172 (Apr. 6, 2023)*:

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on DE: Uncorroborated CI doesn’t provide PC

NY Nassau: Questions in ER about drug and alcohol use not “pedigree questions”

Questions at the hospital about drug or alcohol use are not “pedigree questions” because they go to the heart of the investigation. People v. Jeffcoat, 2023 NY Slip Op 50306(U), 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1549 (Nassau Co. Apr. 7, 2023).* … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonableness, Waiver | Comments Off on NY Nassau: Questions in ER about drug and alcohol use not “pedigree questions”

E.D.Va.: Seizing def as he was opening his door was an invasion of the curtilage without exigency

After an attempted traffic stop, following defendant to his front door and stopping him after the screen door was opened in between it and the front door was curtilage, even in an apartment building. There was no exigency justifying the … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Seizing def as he was opening his door was an invasion of the curtilage without exigency

CA11: Mere fact of a firearm in the home wasn’t exigency here

“Although Officer Plesnik now arrived with the knowledge that there was a firearm on site, the mere presence of a firearm—without more—did not transform the non-exigent scene into an exigent circumstance and trigger the emergency aid exception. Indeed, by the … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Probable cause, Warrant papers, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA11: Mere fact of a firearm in the home wasn’t exigency here

E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

Accidental reverse numbering of Attachments A and B didn’t make the search warrant void. United States v. Deakins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60866 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2023).* Plaintiff’s claim that the Director of National Intelligence violates the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

MS: Thief has no standing in a stolen car

Defendant had no standing in a stolen vehicle. In addition, because it was stolen, impoundment and an inventory search would occur in any event, and that would have been legal anyway. Sills v. State, 2023 Miss. LEXIS 89 (Apr. 6, … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on MS: Thief has no standing in a stolen car

NPR: Feds barged into the wrong hotel room during a drill, then detained the guest inside

NPR: Feds barged into the wrong hotel room during a drill, then detained the guest inside (“Federal agents and military personnel conducting a training exercise at a Boston hotel interrogated an unsuspecting civilian after they entered the wrong room by … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NPR: Feds barged into the wrong hotel room during a drill, then detained the guest inside

CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion

In a sex assault case, assuming the search of defendant’s cell phone was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. M.R.E. 311. The error, if there was one, was the commanding … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CAAF: Cost of exclusion outweigh benefits, so no exclusion