Author Archives: Hall

D.R.I.: Motion in limine about SW is denied; govt can refer to search in trial

Defendant’s motion in limine about whether a search warrant was utilized is denied. The government can refer incidentally to the search. United States v. Djan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8285 (D.R.I. Jan. 10, 2025). Officers had reasonable suspicion for the … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.R.I.: Motion in limine about SW is denied; govt can refer to search in trial

E.D.Tenn.: Applying the Sixth Circuit’s “drug dealer inference,” PC exists for the SW for def’s house

Applying the “drug dealer inference” for nexus, the court finds probable cause to believe defendant was dealing drugs from his house to support the search warrant. United States v. Evans, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2025):

Posted in Nexus | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Applying the Sixth Circuit’s “drug dealer inference,” PC exists for the SW for def’s house

CA9: Consent obtained by trickery is not voluntary

Consent obtained by trickery is not voluntary. United States v. Beland, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1019 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025). “[T]here is no indication from the record that the consent was in any way coerced, that Fiallos-Pena and Verganza … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Issue preclusion, Voluntariness | Comments Off on CA9: Consent obtained by trickery is not voluntary

NY3: Inventory didn’t comply with dept. policy and there was no full inventory

Defendant’s traffic stop was valid, but the state failed to show the impoundment complied with departmental policies. There was no evidence the vehicle was unsecured or unsafe if left at the scene. The inventory search failed to follow departmental procedures … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on NY3: Inventory didn’t comply with dept. policy and there was no full inventory

C.D.Cal.: Running criminal history of passenger unreasonably prolonged the stop

The stop was valid, but the stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion when running the criminal history of the passenger. That was not part of the incidents of the traffic stop. The frisk was also unreasonable. Also, “The Court … Continue reading →

Posted in Independent source, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Running criminal history of passenger unreasonably prolonged the stop

D.Minn.: The fact a gun wasn’t found in def’s car doesn’t mean there wasn’t PC to search

“Defendant’s flight from law enforcement is, however, not the only basis to support the existence of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in the Jeep. The probable cause to search the Jeep … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Minn.: The fact a gun wasn’t found in def’s car doesn’t mean there wasn’t PC to search

AR: “[T]he exclusionary rule—absent a showing of bad faith—does not apply in a revocation hearing.”

“[T]he exclusionary rule—absent a showing of bad faith—does not apply in a revocation hearing.” Wallace v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 19 (Jan. 15, 2025). An officer on patrol in a motel parking lot saw defendant’s car. They drove past each … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Warrant papers | Comments Off on AR: “[T]he exclusionary rule—absent a showing of bad faith—does not apply in a revocation hearing.”

E.D.Tenn.: The alleged illegality of the later arrest doesn’t undo def’s abandonment in flight

Defendant fled, he said, in fear of his life, not knowing that it was the police. He abandoned property in flight. The fact the later arrest might turn out to be invalid doesn’t undo the abandonment. United States v. Ross, … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: The alleged illegality of the later arrest doesn’t undo def’s abandonment in flight

CA1: Report of a dead body in a house for a day didn’t justify warrantless entry

The police entered defendant’s home on a report of a dead body inside. They knew, however, the person was dead at least a day and likely wasn’t inside the home by then. The emergency exception did not apply. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on CA1: Report of a dead body in a house for a day didn’t justify warrantless entry

CA1: SW was in good faith where affidavit was accidentally not filed with court

The Postal Inspector here prepared the search warrant affidavit, and the affidavit was to be incorporated with the warrant. The warrant was filed, however, by the USAO without the affidavit attached. The good faith exception applies. The officer did nothing … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA1: SW was in good faith where affidavit was accidentally not filed with court

DE: Instagram SW was narrowly limited by time

Instagram warrants were supported by probable cause showing both that crimes occurred and that evidence would be found in the account, based on the detailed facts in the affidavits. The warrants satisfied the particularity requirement as the date ranges were … Continue reading →

Posted in Seizure, Social media warrants | Comments Off on DE: Instagram SW was narrowly limited by time

CA5: Where place to be searched appeared to be one residence, not two, SW valid

The search warrant was for 8977 Deer Trail Run, but it turned out to be two properties. “From all outward appearances there was only one property, not two. The officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith in relying on the … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Waiver | Comments Off on CA5: Where place to be searched appeared to be one residence, not two, SW valid

E.D.Okla.: Search of lawyers and their cars coming into jail did not obstruct access to counsel

Stopping and searching the car and person of defense counsel coming into a USMS jail did not violate defendant’s right to access to counsel. The limitations were all reasonable. United States v. Freeman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745 (E.D. Okla. … Continue reading →

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Privileges | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Search of lawyers and their cars coming into jail did not obstruct access to counsel

NY Albany Co.: Unrestrained administrative searches of cannabis stores violates 4A

Petitioners show a likelihood of success on their claim for injunctive relief from unrestrained “administrative inspections,” essentially without boundaries. Super Smoke N Save LLC v. N.Y. State Cannabis Control Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 25009 (Albany Co. Jan. 13, 2025). … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search | Comments Off on NY Albany Co.: Unrestrained administrative searches of cannabis stores violates 4A

D.Minn.: Overdose call justified frisk

Police encountered defendant because he was experiencing an overdose. A frisk of his pockets for the cause produced a gun. United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236845 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4921 … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Emergency / exigency, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Overdose call justified frisk

CA2: Mental health seizure for danger to self or others requires PC and exigency

“[A] ‘warrantless seizure for the purpose of involuntary hospitalization may be made only upon probable cause, that is, only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seized is dangerous to [him]self or to others.” Singh v. City … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA2: Mental health seizure for danger to self or others requires PC and exigency

DE: Probation searches of individuals include their residence

The statute on individuals subject to probation searches includes their residences. State v. Crooks, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 830 (Dec. 31, 2024). There were exigent circumstances based on the reported gunshot, potential threat to officers and public safety, and the … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search | Comments Off on DE: Probation searches of individuals include their residence

W.D.Pa.: No standing to contest civil investigative demands to third parties over medical records

Defendant had no standing to contest civil investigative demands to third parties, even involving medical records of others. United States v. Hertel & Brown Physical & Aquatic Therapy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6437 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2025):

Posted in Privileges, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: No standing to contest civil investigative demands to third parties over medical records

D.Minn.: Photographs could be taken during execution of SW

Photographs could be taken during execution of a search warrant. United States v. Schultz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236848 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4918 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025). In a case involving whether … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Seizure | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Photographs could be taken during execution of SW

E.D.Mich.: Officer seizing notebooks couldn’t authenticate them as exhibits at trial

The seizing officer could not authenticate defendant’s notebooks as evidence at the trial. He had no knowledge about how they came into being. United States v. Sherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5696 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2025). Defendant’s admission at … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Officer seizing notebooks couldn’t authenticate them as exhibits at trial