- DE: Mandamus can’t be used as interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress
- New Law Review: Policing Emotions: What Social Psychology Can Teach Fourth Amendment Doctrine
- D.Utah: Def in jail can’t get unrecorded phone calls to nonlawyers to prepare for trial
- W.D.Mich.: Inmate can’t claim a medical condition and then refuse testing on 4A grounds
- E.D.Tenn.: Items unreasonably seized under SW as outside its scope still not returned because they are forfeitable
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."
“Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well.”
–Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“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: Exclusionary rule
E.D.Tenn.: Items unreasonably seized under SW as outside its scope still not returned because they are forfeitable
Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren’t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. … Continue reading
OH8: Extraterritorial stop by LEO doesn’t violate 4A, and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations
An extraterritorial stop by an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations, here especially because of public safety concerns. City of Fairview Park v. Bowman, 2023-Ohio-4210, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4047 (8th … Continue reading
NC: Search incident doesn’t apply to hit-and-run; automobile exception didn’t apply to car partly submerged in ditch
Defendant was the passenger in a car owned by her parents involved in a hit-and-run that fled the scene and ended up in a ditch. The driver ran off because he said he had warrants. She gave the driver’s name. … Continue reading
Plaintiff seeks to block airing of a documentary about his case because it would interfere with his collateral attack. Denied. Takhvar v. Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163006 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023)*:
The state’s statutory failure to allow defendant to contact a lawyer before a BAC test doesn’t require suppression of the BAC test. Dunbar v. Dir. of Revenue, 2023 Mo. App. LEXIS 582 (Aug. 15, 2023). “Movant provides no facts or … Continue reading
The government concedes that there was delay during the stop, but it was all without reasonable suspicion. The officer was looking for other summonses on defendant, including child support orders, where he had no idea there were any. “Finally, Deputy … Continue reading
The search exceeding the scope of a warrant justified suppression: “But here, the benefit of suppression is neither marginal nor nonexistent. The agents exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the warrant when they either ignored or disregarded the risk … Continue reading
The remedy for a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is civil, not exclusion. United States v. King, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19052 (10th Cir. July 25, 2023) (denying COA). “On the whole, the factors outlined in Chavez provide mixed … Continue reading
“But in any event, even where Fourth Amendment violations have occurred—which, the Court takes pains to restate, is not the case here—a dismissal of an indictment is generally not the appropriate remedy. United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365-66, … Continue reading
Failure to file the warrant return doesn’t require suppression. It’s a curable ministerial act. Besides, the defendant can’t show prejudice. As to the merits, the search warrant was issued with probable cause and the good faith exception applies in any … Continue reading
C.D.Cal.: Defense counsel can’t make a false argument belied by evidence the govt. agreed to suppress
Defense counsel’s closing argument that was flatly contradicted by evidence the government elected to not put in in response to a motion to suppress maybe could have come in. Defense counsel can’t make a false argument to the jury without … Continue reading
The exclusionary rule applies only to constitutional violations, not statutory, and a violation of the probation search statute is not subject to exclusion. State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-2025, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2044 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023). “While we note … Continue reading
An alleged overbroad email search warrant is pursued by a motion to suppress, not a motion to dismiss. “The remedy for such Fourth Amendment violations in a criminal proceeding is suppression of the evidence, not dismissal of the indictment or … Continue reading
CA10: Despite SW’s overbreadth, executing officers understood the crime under investigation; GFE applies
The warrant was previously held overbroad and the case was remanded to the district court for findings on the good faith exception. In this second appeal, the good faith exception applies. The officers understood the limits in the warrant to … Continue reading
Searching officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by not leaving a copy of the search warrant, let alone the original. Carter v. Luciano, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101723 (S.D. W. Va. June 12, 2023).* The search warrant was based … Continue reading
CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied
Defendant was the subject of a joint raid in Cambodia by local and U.S. officers. The search of defendant’s room was held unlawful under Cambodian law because there was no written consent of the owner, something with no counterpart in … Continue reading
Defendant was stopped because officers had reason to believe that he was transporting parts for ghost guns from New England to a gun show in Pennsylvania, and he was stopped in New York City. There is no constitutional requirement that … Continue reading
The trial court found a Franks violation from the officer overstating with reckless disregard the facts, and it suppressed the search. Then came defendant’s statements based on the false search warrant affidavit. The trial court did not suppress, but the … Continue reading
A statutory exclusionary rule for a particular action that was adopted after the search and seizure was not retroactive. Moore v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 343 (CMay 30, 2023) (unpublished).* The totality shows reasonable suspicion to extend the stop … Continue reading
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the government can obtain them to enforce a restitution order. United States v. Osborn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90076 (D. Colo. May 23, 2023). Defendant doesn’t get a Franks … Continue reading