Author Archives: Hall

D.Mont.: Incidents leading to SW doesn’t necessarily make them relevant for trial; motion in limine granted

Prior incidents led to the search warrant here, but that doesn’t make them admissible in this trial. Motion in limine granted. United States v. Knapp, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177213 (D. Mont. Oct. 11, 2019). The plaintiff didn’t overcome the … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Incidents leading to SW doesn’t necessarily make them relevant for trial; motion in limine granted

AZ: Presenting a consent form after def lawyers-up doesn’t violate Miranda

Defendant was Mirandized, and she lawyered up. She was presented with a consent form for her cell phone with the understanding that if she didn’t consent they’d get a search warrant. She didn’t ask for a lawyer, and she consented. … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent | Comments Off on AZ: Presenting a consent form after def lawyers-up doesn’t violate Miranda

D.Nev.: Email SW limited to a date range and containing keywords was particular

Email search warrant limited to a date range and containing keywords was particular. United States v. Cariani, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177059 (D. Nev. Oct. 10, 2019):

Posted in E-mail, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Email SW limited to a date range and containing keywords was particular

CA6: One prior excessive force claim isn’t pattern and practice in a § 1983 case

One other excessive force claim investigated by the City is not evidence of pattern and practice or failure to train. Stewart v. City of Memphis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30491 (6th Cir. Oct. 11, 2019).* Defendant’s successor 2255 also raises … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA6: One prior excessive force claim isn’t pattern and practice in a § 1983 case

TN: Possession of meth in truck many months earlier wasn’t PC to believe it’s there now

Defendant’s alleged possession of methamphetamine in his truck many months earlier was not probable cause to believe it could still be there at the time of the search. Defendant’s possession of a meth pipe, however, gave cause to search the … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Staleness | Comments Off on TN: Possession of meth in truck many months earlier wasn’t PC to believe it’s there now

CA6: Merely alleging pat-down search was done “without a legitimate reason” doesn’t state a 4A claim; more required

“Merely alleging that Jones’ conducting pat-down searches ‘without a legitimate reason’ is insufficient to state a plausible claim of a Fourth Amendment violation. Under the Fourth Amendment, ‘[t]he touchstone of whether a given search or seizure is reasonable is whether … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA6: Merely alleging pat-down search was done “without a legitimate reason” doesn’t state a 4A claim; more required

FL5: CI rented car for def to commit a robbery; told police and they put GPS on car; stop was with PC

The CI had knowledge defendant was going to commit a robbery and was enlisted to rent a car for it. The CI told the police, and they planted a GPS on the car with the CI’s permission. After the robbery, … Continue reading →

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on FL5: CI rented car for def to commit a robbery; told police and they put GPS on car; stop was with PC

MD: License plate reader’s alert of lack of insurance was RS for stop

The trooper’s license plate reader scan showed defendant’s vehicle had no insurance on file. That was reasonable suspicion for the stop. Gary v. State, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 870 (Oct. 9, 2019). Also,

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MD: License plate reader’s alert of lack of insurance was RS for stop

Miami Herald: Miami Police to purchase spyware to trace and monitor phones and social media

Miami Herald: Miami Police to purchase spyware to trace and monitor phones and social media by Jack Brooke (“The Miami Police Department will soon have its own surveillance technology to track and monitor phone calls and social media messages.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Miami Herald: Miami Police to purchase spyware to trace and monitor phones and social media

E.D.Pa.: Protective sweep was properly limited and cell phones in plain view could be seized if it was readily apparent they were evidence

The officers’ protective sweep was justified by the facts, and it was constrained to areas large enough to hide a person. In plain view were two cell phones that were properly seized and then later searched with a warrant. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Protective sweep was properly limited and cell phones in plain view could be seized if it was readily apparent they were evidence

S.D.Ga.: It was reasonable to stop defendant and inquire where def was parked next to a dilapidated building

Defendant’s stop for parking near a dilapidated maybe abandoned structure was reasonable because the officers were justified in inquiring who he was and what he was doing. In their experience, this activity supported at least an inference that defendant might … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: It was reasonable to stop defendant and inquire where def was parked next to a dilapidated building

N.D.Iowa: SW said “immediate search” but officers waited two days; not a 4A violation

The search warrant said that is should be executed “immediately,” but officers waited two days to coordinate with the multiple agencies involved. Rule 41(e) says “execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than 14 days.” At worse, this … Continue reading →

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: SW said “immediate search” but officers waited two days; not a 4A violation

OH8: SW was for all of a multifamily dwelling, only one unit was occupied; it was particular

The search warrant referred to the premises to be searched as “5243/45 Broadway.” It was one continuous apartment downstairs with one address, and the other upstairs was still being built and was occupied. 5243 was used on the search warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on OH8: SW was for all of a multifamily dwelling, only one unit was occupied; it was particular

N.D.Ind.: Arrest outside motel room still permitted protective sweep where there was RS someone else was there

Defendant was arrested outside his motel room, but that did not bar a protective sweep of the motel room where the officers had reason to believe others could be present. Baldwin v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175253 (N.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Arrest outside motel room still permitted protective sweep where there was RS someone else was there

D.Minn.: Def was a parole absconder with a cell phone; PC existed for a warrant for a ping of the cell phone to find him

Defendant was a state parole absconder, and the officers got a warrant for a tracking order on the phone to find him, and it was issued with probable cause he’d be found with his phone. In any event, the good … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Def was a parole absconder with a cell phone; PC existed for a warrant for a ping of the cell phone to find him

DE: SW for drugs allows search anywhere drugs may be hidden

A search warrant for drugs authorizes a search any place where drugs may be hidden. The fact other things are found that are evidence allows their seizure, too. Jackson v. State, 2019 Del. LEXIS 456 (Oct. 8, 2019). U.S. Probation … Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Standards of review | Comments Off on DE: SW for drugs allows search anywhere drugs may be hidden

ID: State’s claim of exigency for warrantless entry into house was unsupported; suppression affirmed

Defendant was allegedly selling tainted marijuana from his house. Police did a warrantless entry with exigency as the excuse. There wasn’t any claim that anybody inside was in distress, and no questions about it. Suppression affirmed. State v. Sessions, 2019 … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on ID: State’s claim of exigency for warrantless entry into house was unsupported; suppression affirmed

NJ: Def made showing for additional discovery to make Franks challenge

Defendant sought additional discovery to be able to pursue a Franks challenge, and it was denied, and that was error. “In sum, because defendant was not able to investigate anything in the detective’s affidavit by obtaining routine discovery that should … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Seizure | Comments Off on NJ: Def made showing for additional discovery to make Franks challenge

D.Md.: Failure to get a SW for BAC required suppression here; well established procedures were in place

A stop on a U.S. Park property led to a warrantless blood draw which is suppressed because there was no effort to get a warrant despite a well-known procedure in place to do so. “Further, the government’s argument that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on D.Md.: Failure to get a SW for BAC required suppression here; well established procedures were in place

D.N.M.: Apt. number not required since specific location was given

The specific apartment number wasn’t given, but the physical and geographic location was, and that’s sufficient. “This description provided sufficient particularity for officers to locate the unit to be searched. Accordingly, the Court finds that the affidavit’s description of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Apt. number not required since specific location was given