Author Archives: Hall

S.D.N.Y.: RS parolee is into drugs justifies PO’s cell phone search

State parole officers with reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in drugs could seize and search his cell phone. United States v. Devaughn, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5406 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022). There was no reasonable suspicion for a probation search … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: RS parolee is into drugs justifies PO’s cell phone search

MT: Probation search was justified; its overall reasonableness didn’t warrant suppression here

There was reasonable suspicion for the probation search of defendant’s house based on his wife’s report that he was using meth again. The supervisory PO authorized a warrantless entry if necessary. The record is limited as to the reasonableness of … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MT: Probation search was justified; its overall reasonableness didn’t warrant suppression here

N.D.Tex.: Knock-and-talk led to a consent search

Defendant’s knock-and-talk led to a consent search. “Courts consider six primary factors to determine whether consent to a search is knowing and voluntary: (1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status; (2) presence of coercive police procedures; (3) the extent … Continue reading →

Posted in Knock and talk, Scope of search, Voluntariness | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Knock-and-talk led to a consent search

MS: Open fields covered by state const.; warrant required for administrative search

A warrant is required for administrative searches under the Mississippi constitution, which also protects all land owned by the complainant, including open fields. Plain view is inapplicable here. The exclusionary rule applies to this administrative search and seizure. Okhuysen v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Open fields, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on MS: Open fields covered by state const.; warrant required for administrative search

M.D.Pa.: Failure to completely follow inventory policy doesn’t require suppression

The inventory here wasn’t complete because defendant’s cell phone wasn’t in the inventory and apparently left behind. [Now that’s ironic.] A gun and ammunition were. Because they are dangerous instrumentalities, that makes the inventory reasonable. “It is not obvious to … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Inventory | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Failure to completely follow inventory policy doesn’t require suppression

M.D.Fla.: Facebook capturing CP was private search; its ToS show no REP

Facebook’s passing on suspected child pornography on its platform is a private search. Moreover, Facebook’s terms of service show a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for child porn. United States v. Montijo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4577 (M.D.Fla. … Continue reading →

Posted in Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Social media warrants | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Facebook capturing CP was private search; its ToS show no REP

EFF brief: Court Orders Authorizing Law Enforcement To Track People’s Air Travels In Real Time Must Be Made Public

EFF: Court Orders Authorizing Law Enforcement To Track People’s Air Travels In Real Time Must Be Made Public by Aaron Mackey:

Posted in Tracking warrant, Warrant papers | Comments Off on EFF brief: Court Orders Authorizing Law Enforcement To Track People’s Air Travels In Real Time Must Be Made Public

S.D.Cal. gives helpful explanation of application of Heck bar

A helpful explanation of the Heck bar to Fourth Amendment claims is Cordova v. Imperial Cnty. Narcotics Task Force, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3993 (S.D.Cal. Jan. 7, 2022).* Plaintiff lost her excessive force claim, and the defendants sought attorneys fees … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on S.D.Cal. gives helpful explanation of application of Heck bar

D.Neb.: Inventory reasonable and followed SOP despite officer’s expectation to find evidence of crime

The inventory here was reasonable despite the fact the officer suspected illegal items in the vehicle. A criminal search was not the sole motivating factor, and the inventory followed SOPs. United States v. Nielsen, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249611 (D.Neb. … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Inventory reasonable and followed SOP despite officer’s expectation to find evidence of crime

D.Conn.: Arrest warrant permitted entry into def’s house to attempt to locate him

Defendant was on the lam, and officers, armed with an arrest warrant, entered his house thinking he’d returned there. He wasn’t but observations were made that led to a search warrant for the house. Motion to suppress denied. The arrest … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Arrest warrant permitted entry into def’s house to attempt to locate him

E.D.Mo.: Third party to forfeiture can’t challenge search

Third parties to a forfeiture seeking to protect their interest have no standing to challenge legality of the seizure that led to the forfeiture. United States v. Koeln, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3934 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 10, 2022). Defendant’s felony arrest … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Forfeiture, Inventory | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Third party to forfeiture can’t challenge search

CO: Particularity of cell phone SW was harmless error and didn’t even have to be decided

Defendant’s claim that his cell phone search warrant violated the particularity requirement does not have to be decided because, if error, it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on this record. Pettigrew v. People, 2022 CO 2, 2022 Colo. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CO: Particularity of cell phone SW was harmless error and didn’t even have to be decided

CA4: Unsigned SW was subject to GFE where it was readily apparent it was read and acted on

A state unsigned warrant was subject to the good faith exception where the issuing magistrate did everything but sign. The magistrate signed the application on the back of the state-mandated form and initialed the warrant. The court doesn’t go so … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA4: Unsigned SW was subject to GFE where it was readily apparent it was read and acted on

Cal.2: Firing of two LAPD police officers recorded in patrol car ignoring a robbery in progress upheld

Not a search and seizure case, but interesting, and compare this to arrestees recorded talking to each other or themselves in the back of a police car where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy: The firing of two LAPD … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on Cal.2: Firing of two LAPD police officers recorded in patrol car ignoring a robbery in progress upheld

CA2: Def’s possession of multiple cell phones and drugs packaged for street sale created inference more in hotel room

The search of defendant’s person produced multiple cell phones and drugs packaged for street-level sale. There was a fair probability there would be more in his hotel room since drug dealers usually have a base of operations. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA2: Def’s possession of multiple cell phones and drugs packaged for street sale created inference more in hotel room

D.S.C.: Govt met its burden to keep SW papers sealed for a while longer

The government’s motion to seal for the time being the search warrant papers is granted. It could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, and alternative measures are inadequate at this point. In re United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249503 (D.S.C. Dec. … Continue reading →

Posted in Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.S.C.: Govt met its burden to keep SW papers sealed for a while longer

D.Ariz.: Shooting incident 4 days earlier was RS

A shooting incident at a Tucson motel four days earlier led police to stop defendant in a car involved seen on motel video. That was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Castro, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249438 (D.Ariz. Dec. 13, 2021).* … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Shooting incident 4 days earlier was RS

D.Conn.: CI was personally involved in info he provided, and he was further corroborated by an unrelated wiretap

The CI here was untested for prior reliability, but the information was detailed and had the CI’s personal involvement. Moreover, an unrelated wiretap provided some corroboration of the CI’s involvement. This probable cause finding is not a close call. If … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on D.Conn.: CI was personally involved in info he provided, and he was further corroborated by an unrelated wiretap

MA: A computer check during a traffic stop would dispel any RS, and failure to do so was unreasonable

Defendant’s car had an inspection rejection sticker for safety defects, but state law grants a 60 day grace period for correction. A computer check would have answered any questions. “Accordingly, we conclude that whether the troopers’ suspicion was reasonable in … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MA: A computer check during a traffic stop would dispel any RS, and failure to do so was unreasonable

DC: Tripping up def as he fled an encounter was a seizure without RS

D.C. gun recovery unit (GRU) officers stopped and approached defendant in an alley to talk to him. He hesitated and ran, and they ultimately caught him. The stop lacked reasonable suspicion. “Mr. Mayo argues that the GRU officers seized him … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on DC: Tripping up def as he fled an encounter was a seizure without RS