Author Archives: Hall

TN: That officer can’t tell difference between hemp and marijuana doesn’t mean there wasn’t PC from plain smell

The fact the officer can’t tell the difference between hemp and marijuana doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause by plain smell. The stop was justified by the community caretaking function because he was asleep at an intersection. State v. Jones, … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: That officer can’t tell difference between hemp and marijuana doesn’t mean there wasn’t PC from plain smell

CA11: Days of constant pole camera surveillance didn’t state a 4A claim

“As to the pole cameras, we hold that their use did not violate Williamson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The pole cameras surveilled areas exposed to the public, and the fact that they recorded non-stop is of little relevance—the Constitution does not … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Days of constant pole camera surveillance didn’t state a 4A claim

AK: Overbroad part of cell phone SW was severable from the valid part, and that properly came in at trial

This cell phone search warrant was not particular and without probable cause as to “app data,” but it was as to text messages. “If this unlawful provision was the only provision of the warrant that authorized a search for Facebook … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress, Overbreadth, Probable cause | Comments Off on AK: Overbroad part of cell phone SW was severable from the valid part, and that properly came in at trial

S.D.Cal.: Officer doesn’t need a window tint meter in hand to justify a stop for overtinted windows

“But clearing the low bar of reasonable suspicion requires little more. Police need not ‘carry around and use burdensome equipment to measure light transmittance.” United States v. Wallace, 213 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting People v. Niebauer, 263 … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Officer doesn’t need a window tint meter in hand to justify a stop for overtinted windows

W.D.N.Y.: CA2’s deciding search issue in direct appeal with GFE, too, did not violate “party presentation” rule

The Second Circuit upheld the search in this case and threw in an alternative ground, the good faith exception. On habeas, that did not violate the “party presentation” rule where the parties decide the issues to litigate, not the court. … Continue reading →

Posted in Standards of review, Uncategorized | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: CA2’s deciding search issue in direct appeal with GFE, too, did not violate “party presentation” rule

CA4: Ptf’s arrest was with PC even though he was later exonerated in 65 days by same officers

Plaintiff was arrested for a double murder on probable cause. The officers continued investigating [as they should] and exculpated him, and he was released after 65 days in jail with charges dropped. He sued the officers for the arrest, but … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA4: Ptf’s arrest was with PC even though he was later exonerated in 65 days by same officers

W.D.Mich.: A motorist can be ordered from the car during a traffic stop

In 1977, 48 years ago, SCOTUS held in Pennsylvania v. Mimms that officers could order a motorist out of the car during a traffic stop, and that’s not unreasonable today. [We’re still seeing challenges to that for extending a stop … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: A motorist can be ordered from the car during a traffic stop

E.D.Okla.: Geofence warrant held 4A violation with no GFE

The R&R recommended suppression of the geofence warrant. It is adopted. The warrant caused a wholesale search and was based on what appears to be a slipshod effort. Even the good faith exception didn’t apply. United States v. Fuentes, 2025 … Continue reading →

Posted in geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Geofence warrant held 4A violation with no GFE

CA7: No trespassing sign on driveway didn’t prevent animal control officer from walking up driveway

No trespassing sign at plaintiff’s driveway didn’t make the animal control officer’s entry onto the driveway a Fourth Amendment violation. Also, “[t]he argument that a land patent exempts Shaw’s property from the law is frivolous.” Shaw v. Hall, 2025 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage | Comments Off on CA7: No trespassing sign on driveway didn’t prevent animal control officer from walking up driveway

D.N.H.: Affidavit for SW showed def’s standing

“Examining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence shows that the officers reasonably believed that Guerrero-Nuñez lived in Apartment 204 and would be present when they entered the apartment. As such, their entry into the apartment did not violate Guerrero-Nuñez’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.H.: Affidavit for SW showed def’s standing

CA2: Alleged inconsistencies in dog handler’s testimony didn’t necessarily make him unbelievable

“Any inconsistent testimony Fisher gave as to the dog’s ‘alerts’ and ‘indications’ arose out of a confusion of vocabulary rather than lack of credibility, as made evident by the district court’s request that Fisher clarify and not conflate the terms. … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA2: Alleged inconsistencies in dog handler’s testimony didn’t necessarily make him unbelievable

D.Alaska: It was litigation strategy to not file a motion to suppress and cut def’s losses

It was litigation strategy to not file a motion to suppress and cut defendant’s losses. No ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24036 (D. Alaska Jan. 8, 2025).* The cell phone warrant was sufficiently … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Seizure, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Alaska: It was litigation strategy to not file a motion to suppress and cut def’s losses

OR: Officer’s use of a flashlight to facilitate a plan view at night was reasonable

The officer’s use of a flashlight to facilitate a plan view at night was reasonable. State v. Starr, 337 Or. App. 682 (Feb. 12, 2025).* There was probable cause to believe blood on the cell phone was defendant’s justifying the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on OR: Officer’s use of a flashlight to facilitate a plan view at night was reasonable

ID: Officer’s subjective belief drug dog alerted can be sufficient for PC

The officer’s subjective belief the drug dog alerted can be sufficient for probable cause. Here, it’s based on the officer’s training and experience. State v. Morgan, 2025 Ida. App. LEXIS 6 (Feb. 12, 2025):

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on ID: Officer’s subjective belief drug dog alerted can be sufficient for PC

MO: GPS monitoring of a sex offender after release was reasonable

F.S.’s expectation of privacy is diminished as a convicted felon and registered sex offender, and the GPS monitoring’s intrusion on her privacy is slight. The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children and other potential victims from sex crimes. … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on MO: GPS monitoring of a sex offender after release was reasonable

S.D.Ohio: Stone bar applies regardless of the merits of the 4A claim

The Stone bar applies regardless of the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim. Wood v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24460 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2025).* Notice pleading in Fourth Amendment § 1983 claims: “Plaintiff alleges that … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Stone bar applies regardless of the merits of the 4A claim

D.Minn.: That officers could have been more careful and detailed in monitoring the CI doesn’t show a lack of PC

“Mr. Turner is correct that the use of a CRI during drug investigations is common. Moreover, the Court does not disagree that officers could have taken additional steps to yield an even higher degree of confidence that Mr. Turner was … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on D.Minn.: That officers could have been more careful and detailed in monitoring the CI doesn’t show a lack of PC

CA9: Use of Taser in dart-mode wasn’t excessive force because it was justified

“An officer’s use of a Taser in dart-mode ‘constitute[s] an intermediate, significant level of force.’ … But under the Graham factors, Officer Swindling’s brief Taser use was justified under the circumstances. First, Sharif had assaulted his daughter’s mother; stolen a … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Use of Taser in dart-mode wasn’t excessive force because it was justified

CA8: False statement van was “secured” was based on secondhand information and was neither material or reckless

The officer’s statement that defendant’s van was “secured” was not sufficient false and misleading to even be reckless. The officer was passing on information from other officers about the van, but the windows were missing and it was accessible. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA8: False statement van was “secured” was based on secondhand information and was neither material or reckless

D.P.R.: Statement taken in violation of Miranda likely usable for impeachment

Defendant’s statement allegedly in violation of Miranda that the government doesn’t intend to use may be used for impeachment if the defendant contradicts them under Harris. United States v. Cardona, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22757 (D.P.R. Feb. 6, 2025). Inferences … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Statement taken in violation of Miranda likely usable for impeachment