- N.D.Ga.: Failure to specify how the R&R was deficient on PC finding was waiver
- Ga.Bar J.: Who Should Guard the Attorney-Client Privilege When Documents are Seized by Law Enforcement,
- OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found
- W.D.N.C.: Traffic stop for expired tags went right to criminal history and was overlong
- ID rejects “reasonable mistake of law” and Heien under state constitution; state’s exclusionary rule is broader
ABA Journal Web 100, Best Law Blogs (2017); ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2015-16) (discontinued 2018)
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book
online since Feb. 24, 2003 Approx. 350,000 visits (non-robot) since 2012 Approx. 45,000 posts since 2003 (25,700+ on WordPress as of 12/31/22)
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF
State courts (and some USDC opinions)
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
--Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Frontier Foundation
NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
—Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today."
— Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property."
—Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."
—United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
---Pepé Le Pew
—Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock
Category Archives: Burden of pleading
WA: Stop to inquire of paying transit fare violated state constitution
Defendant’s freedom under the state constitution to not be interfered with in his private affairs was violated by a stop and inquiry whether he had paid a transit fare. He provided a false name that led to his prosecution for … Continue reading
Cal.4: Without specific argument, court won’t look to SW and affidavit to make it for the appellant
Without specific argument, the court of appeals will not scour the record and the search warrant affidavit to make a party’s argument for him. Billauer v. Escobar-Eck, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 144 (4th Dist. Feb. 28, 2023) (anti-SLAPP case; not … Continue reading
S.D.Ill.: When moving to suppress “data” one has to be specific
Defendant’s motion to suppress “data” and “associated data” fails because of his failure to show what and where it was or could be. (It kind of becomes a general motion to suppress.) United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading
AR: Claim state’s response to motion to suppress was judicial admission has to be presented to trial court
To argue that the state’s admissions in a response to a motion to suppress amount to a judicial admission of fact, the issue has to be argued to the trial court to preserve it. Otherwise, the trial court is free … Continue reading
IA: State failure to object to lack of Franks preliminary showing results in hearing, but def fails anyway
Defendant got a Franks hearing without an adequate showing, and the state didn’t object. So the court of appeals considers the showing at the hearing over the state’s objection, and defendant fails to show recklessness or intentional false statement or … Continue reading
FL4: Suppression of arrest exceeded the relief def sought and is reversed
Defendant’s motion to suppress did not put the state on notice that he was seeking to suppress the result of his arrest. The trial court erred in granting that relief. State v. Bender, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 27 (Fla. 4th … Continue reading
D.Minn.: All theories to suppress must be raised to USMJ on referral or it’s waived
Defendant’s storage unit had the doors and handles tested with Ion Scanning. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that. Before the USDJ, however, he raised it was a trespass to do it as the officers did. That’s waived … Continue reading
NY1: When state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded
When the state doesn’t challenge standing, it’s taken as conceded. The trial court thus erred in deciding standing. People v. Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 07304, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7136 (1st Dept. Dec. 22, 2022). Defendant had his … Continue reading
OR: Even constitutional challenges need to be preserved below
Even constitutional challenges need to be preserved below. Jimenez v. Dep’t of Revenue, 370 Or. 543 (Dec. 15, 2022). The court does not find the officer’s testimony credible. He claimed he saw defendant with binoculars from 100′ away buying liquor … Continue reading
Cal.2: MJ smell associated with minors still RS for an offense
Officers ran an LPN and saw that the vehicle had expired tags. Driving next to the car, officers smelled burnt marijuana and knew that the users were minors which is still an offense under California law. That was cause for … Continue reading
IN: Mistake of law to an illegal search or seizure applies to the scope of the law, not whether it even exists
The mistake of law “defense” to an illegal search or seizure applies to the scope of the law, not whether it even exists. Here, it didn’t. White v. State, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 390 (Dec. 8, 2022). The specific characteristics … Continue reading
SC: Exigency for CSLI was shooting victim left for dead and defendant was armed and dangerous
There was exigency for CSLI. “Thus, this was not a standard criminal investigation seeking cell phone data; rather, this request sought to address an ongoing emergency because Carter was potentially armed and dangerous, had been involved in a violent crime … Continue reading
MO: Objection for “lack of foundation and improper procedure” not a 4A challenge
An objection to a BAC test for lack of foundation and improper procedure does not preserve a Fourth Amendment challenge. Petersen v. State, 2022 Mo. LEXIS 226 (Nov. 22, 2022). The officers made a valid plain view to damage to … Continue reading
E.D.Ark.: Inmate states claim against Sheriff and jail phone provider that privileged attorney calls were turned over to police
Plaintiff Texas inmate was in an Arkansas county jail in 2015-17, and he discovered in 2021 through his current defense lawyer that the county jail phone contractor turned over telephone calls between him and his criminal defense lawyer to the … Continue reading
M.D.Fla.: Lack of clarity of motion to suppress leads to denial
“Defendant’s motion is not a model of clarity.” “As an overarching concern, Defendant has not met his burden to be ‘sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural’ in presenting a substantial claim as to either warrant.” “Defendant has not presented any … Continue reading
CA4: Omissions under Franks have to be shown “designed to mislead”
When challenging a search warrant under Franks for omission of information, the defendant’s burden is higher because affidavits for warrants never include all available information and don’t have to, and the omissions have to be shown “designed to mislead.” Defendant … Continue reading
MN: Reliable hearsay can be considered for PC
In determining probable cause, “reliable hearsay” may be considered. State v. Dixon, 2022 Minn. LEXIS 483 (Nov. 9, 2022). The question of lack of probable cause was not in the motion to suppress, but the trial court held there was, … Continue reading
MA: Ptf stated claim for unjustified community caretaking entry to investigate alleged elder abuse
Plaintiff was caring for a 95-year-old retired priest. She stated a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation for a warrantless entry into her house, in part, under the community caretaking function without justification. Gallagher v. S. Shore Hosp., Inc., 2022 … Continue reading
MA: Def not prejudiced by third party’s response to SW
A third party in possession of Medicaid records was served with a search warrant, and appellant complains of the procedural nature of the third party’s response. [Aside from no standing,] Appellant doesn’t even attempt to show that the exclusionary rule … Continue reading
TN: No IAC: strategic choice to distance def from premises
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search of the premises. The defense at trial was that defendant was merely a guest who didn’t have control of the stuff found there. To link defendant more to the premises was … Continue reading