Author Archives: Hall

GA: Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue

Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue. Walker v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 301 (Sep. 22, 2026). Defendant admitted that marijuana might be in the car, so the smell of marijuana which … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on GA: Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue

Reason: Homeland Security Is Monitoring Activists Building Anti-Flock Tech

Reason: Homeland Security Is Monitoring Activists Building Anti-Flock Tech by Daniel Boguslaw (“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fusion centers have started monitoring anti-surveillance activists, according to records obtained by Reason. An intelligence report compiled in Massachusetts and redistributed by a … Continue reading →

Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on Reason: Homeland Security Is Monitoring Activists Building Anti-Flock Tech

W.D.Pa.: Def can’t repackage a losing 4A standing claim into a due process claim

A defendant can’t repackage a losing Fourth Amendment standing claim into a due process claim, at least via a 2255. United States v. Vega, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214580 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 22, 2026):

Posted in Due process, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Def can’t repackage a losing 4A standing claim into a due process claim

GA: No case says SW required to ask for cell phone password

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that a warrant was required for a request for a cell phone password. No case anywhere says that’s required. Reynolds v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 303 (Sep. 22, 2026). The inventory search of … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Inventory, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on GA: No case says SW required to ask for cell phone password

VA: Body cam video of valid arrest would not be suppressed

Defendant doesn’t get to suppress the body cam of her detention where the officer told her to stand in one place and then she later assaulted the officer. It was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Ross v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Body cameras, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on VA: Body cam video of valid arrest would not be suppressed

NM: Trial court’s finding of consent is reversed because the court engaged in its own internet investigation beyond what the parties provided

The suppression order for defendant on coerced consent is reversed. The trial court engaged in its own research into facts to make the decision on acquiring the affidavit for a later warrant, the distance between things, and the temperature at … Continue reading →

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Probation / Parole search, Standards of review | Comments Off on NM: Trial court’s finding of consent is reversed because the court engaged in its own internet investigation beyond what the parties provided

Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules

Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“Cops keep carving out tech exceptions to the Fourth Amendment—and courts are giving them their blessing.”):

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, geofence | Comments Off on Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules

Reason: Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question

Reason: Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question by Del Schlangen (“Gun owners should be paying attention to how police use gunfire microphones in conjunction with license plate cameras.”):

Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on Reason: Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question

N.D.Ohio: Car in driveway was on curtilage and plain view prohibited

Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Car in driveway was on curtilage and plain view prohibited

PA: 18 U.S.C. § 2558A doesn’t mandate social media searches, only reporting what they discover; still a private search

The searches of social media by Facebook and Google then reported to NCMEC were private searches. The fact there’s a duty to report that which they find doesn’t mean any searches were mandated by government. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2026 PA … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Private search | Comments Off on PA: 18 U.S.C. § 2558A doesn’t mandate social media searches, only reporting what they discover; still a private search

D.Mont.: Delay of USPS Express Mail for dog sniff didn’t violate 4A

With no guaranteed delivery time on a USPS Express Mail package, briefly delaying it in transit to look up the names on it (sender and recipient and addresses) didn’t violate any Fourth Amendment rights. Separating it for a dog sniff … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Curtilage, Dog sniff, Mail and packages | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Delay of USPS Express Mail for dog sniff didn’t violate 4A

S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

Officers came to defendant’s house without an arrest or search warrant to arrest him for a CSAM offense. He answered the door in his underwear. They asked about cell phone and saw it and seized it. Payton applies, and the … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Good faith exception, immigration stops, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

OH2: Parking on the grass justified stop

Parking on the grass justified this stop. State v. Green, 2026-Ohio-3654 (2d Dist. Sep. 18, 2026).* On the totality, defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, and it was not unreasonably extended. State v. Livesay, 2026 Tenn. … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on OH2: Parking on the grass justified stop

CA11: NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support PC and the GFE

NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support probable cause and the good faith exception. United States v. Gibbs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28546 (11th Cir. Sep. 17, 2026). Even if plaintiff could show that the official’s conduct was wrongful and … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support PC and the GFE

MS: Execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get suspect’s CSLI

Defendant’s allegedly committing an execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get his CSLI at that moment to locate him. Carpenter recognized exigency exceptions. Anderson v. State, 2026 Miss. App. LEXIS 406 (Sep. 15, 2026). Defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on MS: Execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get suspect’s CSLI

OH1: Statute says ID can’t be sought when def in back of police car because it’s not a “public place”

While identification can be sought during a stop on reasonable suspicion under Hiibel under the Fourth Amendment, state statute says “public place,” and the back of a police car isn’t. State v. Bell, 2026-Ohio-3614 (1st Dist. Sep. 16, 2026). 2254 … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on OH1: Statute says ID can’t be sought when def in back of police car because it’s not a “public place”

CA3: Strip search outside of jail without SW or exigency violates 4A, but QI here

Strip search of an arrestee outside of a jail without warrant or exigency violates the Fourth Amendment, but the officer gets qualified immunity. Beatty v. Gardner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28373 (3d Cir. Sep. 16, 2026):

Posted in Qualified immunity, Strip search | Comments Off on CA3: Strip search outside of jail without SW or exigency violates 4A, but QI here

CA3: Ptfs pled a 4A claim for CPS workers demanding entry without sufficient exigency

Plaintiffs plausibly pled violations of the Fourth Amendment for child protective services demanding and gaining entry into the home without a sufficient showing of exigency to protect the children. Also, the special needs doctrine doesn’t apply here. O’Bryant v. N.J. … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA3: Ptfs pled a 4A claim for CPS workers demanding entry without sufficient exigency

M.D.Pa.: Water Authority’s entry onto curtilage to cut off water for nonpayment was not an unreasonable search

Entering the curtilage to turn off water service for nonpayment of the bill is not a Fourth Amendment seizure or entry. Holland v. Jersey Shore Area Joint Water Auth., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209672 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 16, 2026)*:

Posted in Curtilage | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Water Authority’s entry onto curtilage to cut off water for nonpayment was not an unreasonable search

D.N.J.: Pretrial detainee’s cell search and seizure of papers caused no prejudice nor revealed legal strategies

Defendant was in a federal detention center pending trial, and his cell was searched and legal materials for trial were seized. His Fourth Amendment claim fails on its face. His Sixth Amendment claim also fails because a BOP attorney screened … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Pretrial detainee’s cell search and seizure of papers caused no prejudice nor revealed legal strategies