Category Archives: Custody

D.P.R.: State nighttime search rule on state warrant inapplicable in federal court

The fact a state nighttime search warrant doesn’t comply with state law doesn’t matter in federal court. It’s whether Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment were complied with. Then, the defendant has to show prejudice. Also, the fact defendant had … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Issue preclusion, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on D.P.R.: State nighttime search rule on state warrant inapplicable in federal court

WY: Courthouse entry search valid under “special needs”

Defendant entered a courthouse, and the metal detector went off on a small can on him which he opened on request revealing meth. These searches are valid as “special needs.” Russell v. State, 2024 WY 126, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 128 … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Special needs | Comments Off on WY: Courthouse entry search valid under “special needs”

MA: Three SWs building on each other to ultimate PC

Here there were three search warrants. The second built on the first, and the third on the second, leading to a computer search that was founded on defendant disposing of a body. “When considering the foregoing details together, there was … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Body cameras, Custody, Probable cause | Comments Off on MA: Three SWs building on each other to ultimate PC

S.D.Ill.: Code enforcement officer’s entry to construction site to stop work was not a “search”

A code enforcement officer’s entry onto plaintiff’s construction site to stop work in violation of the city code was not a Fourth Amendment search. And it was otherwise reasonable. Kindle v. Eisert, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198527 (S.D. Ill. Oct. … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Custody, Probation / Parole search, Search | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Code enforcement officer’s entry to construction site to stop work was not a “search”

AR & PA: Def’s statements at time of search used at trial

Defendant’s DNA was taken by warrant at the jail, and his admissions about the offense during that captured on bodycam were admitted at trial. There was no questioning; it was voluntary. Torres v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 457 (Sep. 25, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Custody, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on AR & PA: Def’s statements at time of search used at trial

TN: Def opened door to admit suppressed cell phone evidence by asking the one question too many

Defendant successfully kept out cell phone tracking records for lack of probable cause. “However, during trial, based on defense counsel’s question of whether there was any ‘physical evidence’ connecting Defendant to the case, the trial court ruled that Defendant opened … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Custody, Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: Def opened door to admit suppressed cell phone evidence by asking the one question too many

Cal.3d: A small amount of MJ in def’s car isn’t PC, but here there were suspicious circumstances that make PC

With passage of personal use marijuana in California, courts have held that a small amount in the car is not probable cause. However, “[i]t follows that a warrantless vehicle search will be justified where the presence of a lawful amount … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Probable cause | Comments Off on Cal.3d: A small amount of MJ in def’s car isn’t PC, but here there were suspicious circumstances that make PC

E.D.Mich.: Cell tower dump isn’t CSLI; doesn’t require PC, but just a court order

A cell tower dump isn’t CSLI, so actual probable cause isn’t required. Here, however, there was. In re United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128532 (E.D. Mich. July 18, 2024).* “Finally, the gratuitous physical aggression at the scene cannot be … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Custody, Voluntariness | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Cell tower dump isn’t CSLI; doesn’t require PC, but just a court order

DE: Def counsel’s failure to challenge PC and particularity in cell phone search warrants post-conviction relief

Defendant sufficiently stated grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel from defense counsel’s failure to challenge the search warrant for lack of probable cause and particularity. “Postconviction relief due to ineffectiveness of counsel must be granted in circumstances where the Court … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Custody, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on DE: Def counsel’s failure to challenge PC and particularity in cell phone search warrants post-conviction relief

WI: Community caretaking stop couldn’t be expanded without RS

Where defendant was stopped under the community caretaking function, expanding the stop without further justification was unreasonable. Here, it was because the officer thought defendant may have been driving while sleepy, but the stop was extended. State v. Wiskowski, 2024 … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Custody, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on WI: Community caretaking stop couldn’t be expanded without RS

D.V.I.: 19 warning shots from USCG helicopter to effect stop of boat wasn’t unreasonable

The Coast Guard did not use unreasonable excessive force in firing 19 warning shots from a helicopter to get defendants to stop their boat. United States v. Menocal-Mero, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99881 (D.V.I. June 5, 2024). Viewing the bodycam, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Custody, Excessive force, Foreign searches, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.V.I.: 19 warning shots from USCG helicopter to effect stop of boat wasn’t unreasonable

DC: Lights, coming out of car with hand on gun, and “Let me see your hands” was a seizure

This was a show of authority: “With the emergency lights activated, each officer exited the vehicle and yelled, ‘Let me see your hands’ and quickly approached Mr. Mitchell. Officer Phillip had a hand on her firearm while doing so. Officers … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Custody, Seizure | Comments Off on DC: Lights, coming out of car with hand on gun, and “Let me see your hands” was a seizure

ND: Warrantless entry into garage to investigate driving on a suspended license unreasonable

Officers had probable cause to believe defendant was driving on a suspended DL, and they were parked outside his house and watched him drive into his garage. There was no exigency for the police entry into his garage to arrest … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Custody, Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on ND: Warrantless entry into garage to investigate driving on a suspended license unreasonable

W.D.N.Y.: SW for devices used for video surveillance included cell phones because apps can be used to view cameras from cell phones

In a search warrant for devices capable of use in video surveillance, a cell phone qualified because apps on phones permitted home surveillance cameras (such as Ring doorbell cams) to be viewed on cell phones. United States v. Hampton, 2024 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Custody | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: SW for devices used for video surveillance included cell phones because apps can be used to view cameras from cell phones

CA3: PC for ptf’s arrest for punching a police horse

“Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Coco as the non-moving party, we conclude there is a genuine dispute as to whether there was probable cause to arrest Coco for harassing a police horse under Del. Code tit. … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: PC for ptf’s arrest for punching a police horse

W.D.Pa.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to say CI was reliable when the facts and circumstances alleged showed it

Defendant’s allegations of the police not saying in the warrant affidavit the CI was reliable doesn’t matter because the affidavit for warrant shows otherwise why the CI was credited. There was probable cause. To the extent this would be considered … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Informant hearsay, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t have to say CI was reliable when the facts and circumstances alleged showed it

M.D.La.: Automobile exception doesn’t apply to car parked in owner’s garage

Under Collins, the automobile exception does not apply to a car parked in the owner’s garage. United States v. Dejoie, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64270 (M.D. La. Apr. 8, 2024). “The exclusionary rule does not apply to ‘physical evidence that … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Custody, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Automobile exception doesn’t apply to car parked in owner’s garage

OH4: Officer saying he had PC to search when he didn’t made search without consent

“We find that the detective did have reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop of Stephenson’s vehicle based on the information provided by an informant. However, the detective lacked probable cause to search the vehicle and the purported ‘consent’ that … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Custody, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH4: Officer saying he had PC to search when he didn’t made search without consent

D.Minn.: SW arguably included use of cell site simulator to track phone; GFE applied in any event

The state issued warrant here authorized the use of a cell site simulator, but this wasn’t explicitly stated in the affidavit for warrant. And, the affidavit wasn’t incorporated into the warrant either. This is a close question. The court comes … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site simulators, Custody, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Minn.: SW arguably included use of cell site simulator to track phone; GFE applied in any event

LA5: Omission wasn’t material for Franks and it was only negligent, if anything

“There is no evidence to demonstrate that any omission of Mr. Daleo’s prior statement in the probable cause affidavits was intentional. Further, we find the applications demonstrate that the attesting officers had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant’s residence and … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on LA5: Omission wasn’t material for Franks and it was only negligent, if anything