Author Archives: Hall

C.D.Cal.: Suit over NYC DA’s subpoena for possession of a stolen antiquity is dismissed

The defendant here is Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of New York County, NY (Manhattan). He’s sued in the Central District of California over his office’s investigation into antiquity art theft where plaintiff purchased a statue, the Bronze Male, for … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Due process, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Suit over NYC DA’s subpoena for possession of a stolen antiquity is dismissed

E.D.Ky.: SW affidavit failed to show PC for search of house, but it wasn’t so lacking the GFE doesn’t apply

The affidavit for search warrant here was based on suspicious circumstances but doesn’t show nexus to defendant’s house that he was engaging in drug trafficking from there just from living there. “Ultimately, the evidence in the affidavit did not create … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Good faith exception, Reasonableness, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: SW affidavit failed to show PC for search of house, but it wasn’t so lacking the GFE doesn’t apply

W.D.La.: Request for consent during stop came after RS developed

Defendant’s traffic stop was reasonable because of a cracked windshield on his truck, and a question about consent to search near the end of the ticket writing process didn’t unlawfully extend it. United States v. Calderon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Request for consent during stop came after RS developed

LATimes: ‘People should be worried’: 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers’ genetic data

LATimes: ‘People should be worried’: 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers’ genetic data by Caroline Petrow-Cohen and Stacy Perman (“Once a promising company briefly valued at $6 billion, 23andMe popularized at-home DNA test kits and spawned a cottage industry of ancestry … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA | Comments Off on LATimes: ‘People should be worried’: 23andMe bankruptcy could expose customers’ genetic data

OH2: Officer could pursue across jurisdictional lines

The officer had territorial jurisdiction to stop and arrest defendant after he fled across jurisdictional lines. The officer was in hot pursuit. Also, a motion to dismiss isn’t the remedy. State v. Letts, 2025-Ohio-1085, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 1033 (2d … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on OH2: Officer could pursue across jurisdictional lines

Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025). Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

CA6: By testifying at trial searches were based on false evidence, def violated proffer agreement; govt should have objected, not violated it, too

Defendant’s trial testimony about his searches being based on falsities violated his proffer agreement, but, rather than objecting, the government’s putting in more evidence violated it, too. (But harmless error.) United States v. Grogan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7094 (6th … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on CA6: By testifying at trial searches were based on false evidence, def violated proffer agreement; govt should have objected, not violated it, too

WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

Even though mandatory UA for drug and alcohol don’t directly relate to defendant’s crimes of conviction, there still is a compelling interest in the state being able to test. State v. Nelson, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 150 (Mar. 27, 2025). The … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on WA: Mandatory UAs valid on supervision despite not being related to crime of conviction

CA9: “[E]vidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this CP SW made it overbroad–withdrawn

The “evidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this child pornography search warrant made it overbroad. United States v. Holcomb, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7135 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (opinion withdrawn, new opinion to follow, United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: “[E]vidence of dominion and control provision” sought in this CP SW made it overbroad–withdrawn

Goldwater Institute: Search Warrants in the Digital Age: Supreme Court Should Look to the States

Goldwater Institute: Search Warrants in the Digital Age: Supreme Court Should Look to the States by Timothy Sandefur:

Posted in Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on Goldwater Institute: Search Warrants in the Digital Age: Supreme Court Should Look to the States

W.D.Va.: No REP in non-legal jail mail from being scanned for tablet viewing

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in non-legal mail in jail. Here, mail was scanned and made into a pdf for viewing on a tablet. Cecil v. Keller, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56313 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2025).* A … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Mail and packages, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: No REP in non-legal jail mail from being scanned for tablet viewing

E.D.La.: Def’s presence at another SW execution admissible under 404(b)

Defendant’s presence at a drug house when another search warrant was served is admissible under 404(b). United States v. Holmes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55926 (E.D. La. Mar. 26, 2025).* Defendant’s performance on SFSTs was probable cause for his arrest … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.La.: Def’s presence at another SW execution admissible under 404(b)

D.Ariz.: A cell phone tower dump of a two-hour span is not a “Fourth Amendment event”

A cell phone tower dump of a two-hour span is not a “Fourth Amendment event.” Even if it was, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Pricop, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55939 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2025):

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: A cell phone tower dump of a two-hour span is not a “Fourth Amendment event”

MT: SW obviates implied consent for BAC test

The police having obtained a search warrant for defendant’s BAC, the implied consent statute doesn’t apply. State v. Clinkenbeard, 2025 MT 54 (Mar. 25, 2025). Defendant’s long standing drug trafficking was not stale. 2022 information was refreshed by 2023 information. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Independent source, Staleness, Waiver | Comments Off on MT: SW obviates implied consent for BAC test

D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

Defendant filed a motion in limine in lieu of a motion to suppress which was otherwise out of time. A motion in limine isn’t a substitute for a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court goes to the merits of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s 242 paragraph § 1983 complaint calls into question his criminal conviction, so it’s barred by Heck. Turner v. Kansas Court of Appeals, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55052 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2025).* “Here, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful imprisonment and … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

MA: Weapon found in a Terry frisk can be seized

In a Terry frisk where a weapon is reasonably suspected, the officer has the authority to seize it until he knows what’s going on. Commonwealth v. Crowder, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 130 (Mar. 25, 2025):

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on MA: Weapon found in a Terry frisk can be seized

S.D.N.Y.:The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing

“The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing. See, United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (‘[D]efendant could not challenge the search of a residence merely … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Custody, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.:The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing

E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

An overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard. United States v. Halley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53342 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025). Even if there was a false statement in the affidavit for search warrant, it … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

M.D.Ga.: Cell phone in car of drug dealer was seizable and searched with particular SW

Cell phone found in the car of one reasonably believed to be a drug dealer was searched by a warrant that was particular and with probable cause. United States v. Chambers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53490 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: Cell phone in car of drug dealer was seizable and searched with particular SW