Author Archives: Hall

N.D.Ala.: Lack of a SW signature cured by GFE

“Defendant argues that the warrant is facially deficient because the affidavit lacked a signature, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Gordon, 686 F. App’x 702, 704 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Forfeiture, Good faith exception, Neutral and detached magistrate, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Lack of a SW signature cured by GFE

W.D.N.Y.: SW application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause”

The search warrant application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause.” They are interchangeable. United States v. Tundo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84283 (W.D.N.Y. May 2, 2025). Four months of pole camera surveillance on the front … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: SW application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause”

D.N.J.: Admin SW can’t be quashed before execution

The company here refused an OSHA administrative inspection, so OSHA got an administrative warrant. Then the company moved to quash. Citing In re Anthony Marano Company, 556 F. Supp. 3d 890 (N.D. Ill. 2021), the court holds there is no … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Motion to suppress, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Admin SW can’t be quashed before execution

CA4 (en banc): Geofence warrant was in good faith; no decision on merits

The Fourth Circuit dodges deciding the merits of geofence warrants by going with good faith in a per curiam virtually summary affirmance with 124 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions. Having heard the excellent, spirited oral argument, this was where … Continue reading →

Posted in geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA4 (en banc): Geofence warrant was in good faith; no decision on merits

NYT: Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol’s Stop-and-Arrest Tactics in California

NYT: Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol’s Stop-and-Arrest Tactics in California by Kate Selig (“Border Patrol agents carried out sweeps in California’s Central Valley. Lawyers argued that people were stopped and arrested based on their skin color.”)

Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on NYT: Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol’s Stop-and-Arrest Tactics in California

techpolicy: Reverse Keyword Search Warrants and the Threat to Online Privacy

techpolicy: Reverse Keyword Search Warrants and the Threat to Online Privacy by Abigail Zislis (“Online privacy rights, already limited in the United States, face new threats from the advent of reverse keyword search warrants. In recent years, local and federal … Continue reading →

Posted in Digital privacy, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on techpolicy: Reverse Keyword Search Warrants and the Threat to Online Privacy

MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home

Officers went to New Hampshire on a criminal investigation for a Massachusetts crime, and they ended up seizing defendant’s cell phone to preserve evidence, bringing it back to Massachusetts where it was searched. The common law power of citizen’s arrest … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Common law, Conflict of laws, Particularity | Comments Off on MA: Extraterritorial citizen’s arrest power doesn’t permit seizures of cell phone and removal back home

CA4: SW affidavit not required to name an offender

A search warrant is about whether evidence would be found in the place to be searched, not whether there’s an offender. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10138 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025). 2255 petitioner’s Franks ineffective assistance … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Curtilage, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA4: SW affidavit not required to name an offender

Reason: Justice Department Memo Claims Alien Enemies Act Allows Warrantless Home Searches and No Judicial Review

Reason: Justice Department Memo Claims Alien Enemies Act Allows Warrantless Home Searches and No Judicial Review by C.J. Ciaramella (“The memo says ‘Alien Enemies’ aren’t subject ‘to a judicial review of the removal in any court of the United States.’”):

Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on Reason: Justice Department Memo Claims Alien Enemies Act Allows Warrantless Home Searches and No Judicial Review

IL: Actual parole search agreement or waiver not required to be admitted into evidence

When relying on a parole search exception, the state does not have to put the specific document into evidence. Here, also, defendant was transferred on parole from Texas to Illinois. People v. Pyles, 2025 IL App (4th) 240220, 2025 Ill. … Continue reading →

Posted in Mail and packages, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Actual parole search agreement or waiver not required to be admitted into evidence

CNS: FTC calls AI detection company’s claim of 98% accuracy bogus

CNS: FTC calls AI detection company’s claim of 98% accuracy bogus by Joe Dodson (“The commission says Workado’s detection technology offers closer to 50% accuracy when analyzing whether non-academic content contains AI-generated text.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on CNS: FTC calls AI detection company’s claim of 98% accuracy bogus

E.D.N.Y.: Re-search of email in 2024 on a 2022 SW was unreasonable and not protected by GFE

The government seized seven years of defendants’ email records in 2022 but the FBI’s computer somehow lost it. So they re-searched the data in 2024. “The Government asserts that it accessed the full return of data received pursuant to the … Continue reading →

Posted in E-mail, Good faith exception, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Re-search of email in 2024 on a 2022 SW was unreasonable and not protected by GFE

S.D.N.Y.: NY Times gets access to Eric Adams SW materials

The New York Times is granted access to the search warrant materials in the Eric Adams case. It satisfied the standards for common law access. Some limited redactions are permitted. United States v. Adams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79178 (S.D.N.Y. … Continue reading →

Posted in Common law, Hot pursuit, Warrant papers | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: NY Times gets access to Eric Adams SW materials

D.R.I.: Presence of police backup doesn’t obviate protective sweep

Despite there being backup at the scene, the protective sweep here is valid. United States v. Antley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78961 (D.R.I. Apr. 25, 2025). The controlled buy gave probable cause for search under the automobile exception. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.R.I.: Presence of police backup doesn’t obviate protective sweep

S.D.Cal.: Second look at computer for CP based on court order was reasonable and in good faith

Defendant’s computer was seized and searched for child pornography. After the initial warrant, the government applied for permission to reexamine the computer media. The second look was justified, and the good faith exception applies because it involves reliance on a … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion, Scope of search | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Second look at computer for CP based on court order was reasonable and in good faith

AR: Use of a CI for a SW creates no confrontation issue

The use of a CI for a search warrant creates no confrontation issue. Williams v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 252, 2025 Ark. App. LEXIS 254 (Apr. 23, 2025). It was appellate counsel’s choice to not pursue defendant’s search claim on … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Anticipatory warrant, Ineffective assistance, Privileges | Comments Off on AR: Use of a CI for a SW creates no confrontation issue

WaPo: U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

WaPo: U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent by Ariana Eunjung Cha, Caitlin Gilbert and Fenit Nirappil (“Administration health officials walked back a plan to register people with autism after criticism from scientists, privacy experts and … Continue reading →

Posted in Informational privacy | Comments Off on WaPo: U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

techdirt: Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare

techdirt: Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare by Cathy Gellis:

Posted in Digital privacy | Comments Off on techdirt: Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare

N.D.Miss.: An actual “bare bones” affidavit for SW leads to suppression

A “bare bones” affidavit for search warrant in a drug case attested to over Facetime with no real support showed “A lackadaisical approach to constitutional safeguards demonstrates a disregard for the judicial system.” Motion to suppress granted; no good faith … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: An actual “bare bones” affidavit for SW leads to suppression

CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

The Superior Court of San Francisco imposes electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. Because it’s essentially a contract between the defendant and court, it’s consent to EM for release. It also does not violate state separation of powers. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Inventory, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent