Author Archives: Hall

S.D.Miss.: Evanescent nature of evidence of sex crime justified warrantless entry to hotel room

A rape report and the potential evanescent nature of the evidence justified a warrantless entry into defendant’s hotel room. He also was on probation. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43102 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 3, 2026):

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Evanescent nature of evidence of sex crime justified warrantless entry to hotel room

404 Media: CBP Tapped Into the Online Advertising Ecosystem To Track Peoples’ Movements

404 Media: CBP Tapped Into the Online Advertising Ecosystem To Track Peoples’ Movements by Joseph Cox (“An internal DHS document obtained by 404 Media shows for the first time CBP used location data sourced from the online advertising industry to … Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on 404 Media: CBP Tapped Into the Online Advertising Ecosystem To Track Peoples’ Movements

TN: Failure to allege what should have been suppressed defeats IAC claim

Failure to allege what should have been suppressed if a motion to suppress had been filed is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Coyne v. State, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 104 (Mar. 3, 2026). Qualified immunity denied: … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TN: Failure to allege what should have been suppressed defeats IAC claim

CA4: Error to deny suppression motion without hearing where there’s disputed facts

The district court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress without a hearing when there were disputed facts. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6196 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2026). Defendant consented orally and in writing to search … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Issue preclusion, Nexus, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: Error to deny suppression motion without hearing where there’s disputed facts

W.D.Pa.: Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over

Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over. Harris v. Trent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42416 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2026). “Here, assuming the factual disputes in Franke’s favor, the relevant question is whether it was clearly established … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over

W.D.Ark.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing. Owen v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42184 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 20, 2026) (recognizing rule). The officer here blocked defendant’s parked car while he was in it, so that was a stop. … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

Va.L.Rev.: Fourth Amendment Trespass and Internet Search History

Alec J.H. Block & Joseph W. Paul, Fourth Amendment Trespass and Internet Search History,111 Va. L. Rev. Online 188 (2025). Abstract:

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Trespass | Comments Off on Va.L.Rev.: Fourth Amendment Trespass and Internet Search History

The automobile exception is 101 today

See the 100th Anniversary post.

Posted in Automobile exception | Comments Off on The automobile exception is 101 today

CNS: California drivers accuse Flock Safety of sharing data with federal and out-of-state agencies

CNS: California drivers accuse Flock Safety of sharing data with federal and out-of-state agencies by Edvard Pettersson (“Even after Flock removed California law enforcement agencies from its National Lookup service last year, unauthorized access to the agencies’ databases has continued, … Continue reading →

Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on CNS: California drivers accuse Flock Safety of sharing data with federal and out-of-state agencies

CA10: RS didn’t dissipate during wait for drug dog

Reasonable suspicion here once developed didn’t dissipate before the 20-30 minute wait for the drug dog. United States v. Labs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5789 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2026). By statute, “[t]he evidence admissible for meeting the State’s burden … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Forfeiture, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: RS didn’t dissipate during wait for drug dog

W.D.Wash.: Habeas not remedy for immigration arrest without PC

Even if an immigration arrest lacked probable cause, habeas isn’t the remedy. Reyes v. Hermosilla, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41279 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 15, 2026)*:

Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: Habeas not remedy for immigration arrest without PC

E.D.Cal.: Excessive damage in executing writ of possession can state claim

Excessive damage in executing a writ of possession can state a Fourth Amendment claim. Dayton v. Fairfield Mobile Home, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41228 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026). Vehicle finance company’s Fourth Amendment claim against the village’s retention of … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Qualified immunity, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Excessive damage in executing writ of possession can state claim

IL: Searching wallet in Terry frisk for weapons was unreasonable

Even assuming the frisk was for weapons, as the officer stated on the bodycam video, the search of defendant’s wallet exceeded the scope of a Terry frisk. People v. Molitor, 2026 IL App (2d) 240644, 2026 Ill. App. LEXIS 65 … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on IL: Searching wallet in Terry frisk for weapons was unreasonable

D.Minn.: Preliminary injunction granted against immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) because they violate 4A

Preliminary injunction granted against immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) because they violate the Fourth Amendment. U.H.A. v. Bondi, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40545 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2026)*:

Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Preliminary injunction granted against immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a) because they violate 4A

TN: Three controlled buys in three days is PC

Three controlled buys three days in a row was probable cause for a warrant for defendant’s house. State v. White, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 95 (Feb. 27, 2026).* “Here, a review of the affidavit demonstrates that it does contain … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: Three controlled buys in three days is PC

D.N.M.: Suit over search in pending criminal case barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s first Fourth Amendment claim failed under Heck. He amended the complaint and still doesn’t overcome it. His claim of failure to train in serving search warrants is conclusory and doesn’t state a claim either. Flores v. Wood, 2026 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Suit over search in pending criminal case barred by Heck

CA11: 4A doesn’t require “in the presence of the officer” for misdemeanor arrest

While Georgia law requires a misdemeanor offense be in the presence of the officer, the Fourth Amendment does not. The arrest was constitutionally valid. Middlebrooks v. Kasmar, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5855 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2026). There was information … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA11: 4A doesn’t require “in the presence of the officer” for misdemeanor arrest

NH: Trial court didn’t err in allowing officer to testify to what geolocation information meant here: def was in victim’s house

The victim found an intruder in his home, and called the police. The intruder got away. The police sought geolocation information from Google on all phones at the house, and defendant’s phone came up. The officer called defendant. This was … Continue reading →

Posted in geofence, Geolocation data, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on NH: Trial court didn’t err in allowing officer to testify to what geolocation information meant here: def was in victim’s house

TX14: No REP in electronic monitoring while on pretrial release

Defendant on electronic monitoring as a bond condition has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the GPS information. Hawkins v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 1874 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Feb. 26, 2026) (substituted opinion on rehearing), UPDATE: … Continue reading →

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on TX14: No REP in electronic monitoring while on pretrial release

E.D.Mich.: Typo in SW affidavit didn’t justify Franks hearing

A single error in a warrant affidavit that should be characterized as a typo and not a false statement doesn’t justify a Franks hearing. United States v. McClain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39891 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2026). Defendant had … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Typo in SW affidavit didn’t justify Franks hearing