Author Archives: Hall

The automobile exception is 100 today

The automobile exception is 100 today: Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). The offense date: December 15, 1921. The place: Pike 16, 16 miles east of Grand Rapids, Michigan, which I surmise is now the route of I-96 … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception | Comments Off on The automobile exception is 100 today

C.D.Cal.: “4A privileges and immunities” are two claims, not one, and both denied here

Plaintiff’s case claimed Fourth Amendment privileges and immunities, but that’s two claims because privileges and immunities is under Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1 but it doesn’t state a claim under either. Gay v. Sheriff of L.A. Cty., 2025 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: “4A privileges and immunities” are two claims, not one, and both denied here

NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

Defendant’s motion to suppress based on an apparent misdescription of the place to be searched wasn’t resolved below, so the case is remanded for further development. People v. Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1170 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

GA: Shouting and arguing inside is not exigency

Yelling and arguing from inside a home is not exigent circumstances. As to a second entry, the defendant’s statements about an injury were tainted as fruit of the initial unlawful entry. Refusal to consent to re-entry did not constitute a … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on GA: Shouting and arguing inside is not exigency

CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix

CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix by Michael J.Z. Mannheimer:

Posted in Excessive force, Seizure | Comments Off on CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix

Reason: Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car

Reason: Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car by Emma Camp (“A Denver SWAT team burst into the wrong family’s apartment, holding several women and children at gunpoint before locking them in a police car … Continue reading →

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on Reason: Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car

CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

“When Dean responded to the ‘open structure call’ he was performing a community caretaking function. Community caretaking functions are ‘totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.’ … Here, even … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

S.D.Miss.: Because CA5 prohibits broad geofence warrants, cell tower dump warrant unreasonable

USMJ concludes the Fifth Circuit’s geofence warrant case means a cell tower dump warrant is unreasonable. In re Four Applications for Search Warrants Seeking Info. Associated with Particular Cellular Towers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32995 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 21, 2025):

Posted in Cell phones, geofence | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Because CA5 prohibits broad geofence warrants, cell tower dump warrant unreasonable

M.D.Tenn.: State court’s order permitting entry past a privacy fence to serve civil process made entry reasonable

A state court order that gave officers permission to enter past plaintiff’s privacy fence to serve him with a summons was sufficient to grant them at least qualified immunity or was reasonable for the entry alleged to be in violation … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonableness | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: State court’s order permitting entry past a privacy fence to serve civil process made entry reasonable

Reason: Detroit Police Wrongly Arrested Woman After Facial Recognition Tech Misidentified Her as Shooting Culprit

Reason: Detroit Police Wrongly Arrested Woman After Facial Recognition Tech Misidentified Her as Shooting Culprit by Emma Camp (“Last year, Detroit police wrongly arrested LaDonna Crutchfield after facial recognition software incorrectly identified her as the culprit of a shooting, according … Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology, Video surveillance | Comments Off on Reason: Detroit Police Wrongly Arrested Woman After Facial Recognition Tech Misidentified Her as Shooting Culprit

CA6: Nexus can be circumstantial

Nexus can be circumstantial. United States v. Simmons, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4208 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025) (It suggests it’s limited to drug dealers, but it’s really not. Moreover, it’s articulating what other courts think but don’t usually say.):

Posted in Nexus | Comments Off on CA6: Nexus can be circumstantial

SCOTUS denies review of “the presence rule” for misdemeanor arrests

SCOTUS denied review of a case from the Eleventh Circuit on the in the presence rule for misdemeanor arrests from United States v. Gonzalez, 107 F.4th 1304 (11th Cir. 2024) because, noted by the statement of Sotomayor and Gorsuch, the … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUS denies review of “the presence rule” for misdemeanor arrests

CA11: The questions that extended the stop were for officer safety and thus reasonable

The questions here alleged to have prolonged the stop were primarily related to officer safety and weapons and not drugs. Therefore, they were reasonable. United States v. Green, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3856 (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2025). There was … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA11: The questions that extended the stop were for officer safety and thus reasonable

NY3: Inventory doesn’t have to be everything, just meaningful things

The inventory papers and the body cam video show that the officer inventoried all the meaningful things in the vehicle, so it complied with policy and was reasonable. People v. Craddock, 2025 NY Slip Op 01016, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on NY3: Inventory doesn’t have to be everything, just meaningful things

TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

Defendant’s furtive movements supported exigency that he could attempt to erase things on his cell phone thus justifying its warrantless seizure. Igboji v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1021 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Feb. 20, 2025) (unpublished), on … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Custody, Emergency / exigency, Standing | Comments Off on TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

CA11: Refusal to cooperate in taking DNA by SW permitted adverse inference at trial

“The record here demonstrates that the district court did not plainly err by allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference of guilt from Gonzalez’s refusal to provide his DNA even though his counsel was not present. When the government … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Inventory | Comments Off on CA11: Refusal to cooperate in taking DNA by SW permitted adverse inference at trial

E.D.Okla.: Handling a gun in a parking lot wasn’t RS in an open carry state

The caller’s report to the police that defendant was handling a gun in an apartment building’s parking lot didn’t state a crime in an open carry state. The detention was without consent or reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2025 … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Handling a gun in a parking lot wasn’t RS in an open carry state

CA8: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into Airbnb in sex trafficking investigation

Officers had exigent circumstances for an entry into an Airbnb that was being used for sex trafficking a minor when the targets were constantly on the move from place to place. The FBI was on defendant’s tail with the minor, … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on CA8: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into Airbnb in sex trafficking investigation

D.Utah: Example of how the CI’s story was supported in detail

Defendant challenges the CI’s statements as insufficient to show probable cause, but it fails. This is an example of how this court found the CI’s detail sufficient. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30335 (D. Utah Feb. 19, … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Utah: Example of how the CI’s story was supported in detail

This blog is 22 years old today

See the post from the 20th Anniversary.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on This blog is 22 years old today