Category Archives: Probable cause

CA10: SW for gun three weeks after road rage incident wasn’t stale

Search warrant for a gun in defendant’s house allegedly involved in a road rage incident three weeks earlier was not stale. United States v. Becker, 168 F.4th 1337 (10th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026). Defendant’s December 2019 conviction is affirmed. Reviewing … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on CA10: SW for gun three weeks after road rage incident wasn’t stale

D.D.C.: Walker stopped on street by three officers was without RS

Defendant was stopped walking and surrounded by three officers shining flashlights in his face, and all without reasonable suspicion. Only then did they discover a telling bulge from a weapon. Suppressed. United States v. Wilson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69861 … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Walker stopped on street by three officers was without RS

AL: No RS for pulling up behind legally parked car with blue lights on to inquire; smell of MJ suppressed

There was no reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop in a residential neighborhood when he was lawfully parked and doing nothing wrong. The officer pulled behind him with emergency lights on. That’s not always a seizure, but here it was. When … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on AL: No RS for pulling up behind legally parked car with blue lights on to inquire; smell of MJ suppressed

E.D.Va.: Military search authorization was sufficiently particular for use in federal court

The military search authorization here was sufficiently particular and works in federal court. United States v. Guinsler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63922 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2026). (§ 52.39 n.3). The state stipulated to a false fact in the search … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Military searches, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Military search authorization was sufficiently particular for use in federal court

OH8: Smell of MJ in car alone no longer PC

The smell of marijuana in a car alone isn’t probable cause in Ohio anymore because of legalization, quoting State v. Gray, 2025-Ohio-4607, ¶ 61 (1st Dist. Oct. 3, 2025). State v. Tucker, 2026-Ohio-1045 (8th Dist. Mar. 26, 2026). Challenging only … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH8: Smell of MJ in car alone no longer PC

ID: Inevitable discovery doesn’t always require independent investigation

“[W]e hold that a finding that there was a lawful separate or independent investigation underway is not a per se requirement in every case for the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply. While a separate, untainted investigation may be the simplest … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Probable cause | Comments Off on ID: Inevitable discovery doesn’t always require independent investigation

S.D.Fla.: Privacy Protection Act has a border search exception

The Privacy Protection Act has a border search exception. Madaio v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64418 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2026). When defendant was stopped, the officers had reasonable suspicion the car had been involved in a shooting … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Privacy Protection Act has a border search exception

W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

Defendant had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte. On the merits his Franks challenge fails: “Even assuming arguendo that any of the above challenged statements could be considered false or misleading, Defendants have put forth no credible … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

N.D.Ohio: Violating retail store’s “no firearms” prohibition was RS for stop

Defendant’s violating a “no firearms” prohibition at a retail establishment was reasonable suspicion for his stop for trespassing. United States v. Sinkfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54823 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2026). To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Violating retail store’s “no firearms” prohibition was RS for stop

OR: Stop for illegible temporary paper plate was objectively reasonable [and pretextual]

Defendant’s temporary paper plate was wrinkled and illegible, and that led to the stop. The car was also known to frequent drug houses. Stop still valid. State v. Martin, 347 Or. App. 680 (Mar. 11, 2026).* The individual facts didn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Pretext, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OR: Stop for illegible temporary paper plate was objectively reasonable [and pretextual]

Army: PC shown for picture files in other apps on cell phone

There was probable cause to search the picture files in defendant’s cell phone beyond the app defendant used. It was reasonable to conclude pictures could be moved between places on the phone. United States v. Ingram, 2026 CCA LEXIS 119 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Collective knowledge, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Army: PC shown for picture files in other apps on cell phone

D.Ariz.: PC for forfeiture is similar to PC for a warrant

Probable cause for forfeiture is similar to probable cause for a warrant. United States v. Tetherus, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49868 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2026)*:

Posted in Forfeiture, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: PC for forfeiture is similar to PC for a warrant

D.Neb.: Just because the state seizes a cell phone doesn’t mean they know the Brady implications of the contents

Just because the state seizes a cell phone doesn’t mean they know the Brady implications of the contents. Moss v. Jeffreys, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45716 (D. Neb. Mar. 4, 2026) (§ 60.58 n.2) 2255 petitioner’s claim that defense counsel … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Just because the state seizes a cell phone doesn’t mean they know the Brady implications of the contents

CA8: Crowd dispersal was not a seizure

Police actions in dispersing a crowd were not a seizure, even using less than lethal force. Perkins v. City of Des Moines, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6528 (8th Cir. Mar. 5, 2026).* CBP officer’s conviction for excessive force on a … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Probable cause, Seizure | Comments Off on CA8: Crowd dispersal was not a seizure

W.D.Ark.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing. Owen v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42184 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 20, 2026) (recognizing rule). The officer here blocked defendant’s parked car while he was in it, so that was a stop. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

CA10: RS didn’t dissipate during wait for drug dog

Reasonable suspicion here once developed didn’t dissipate before the 20-30 minute wait for the drug dog. United States v. Labs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5789 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2026). By statute, “[t]he evidence admissible for meeting the State’s burden … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Forfeiture, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: RS didn’t dissipate during wait for drug dog

TN: Three controlled buys in three days is PC

Three controlled buys three days in a row was probable cause for a warrant for defendant’s house. State v. White, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 95 (Feb. 27, 2026).* “Here, a review of the affidavit demonstrates that it does contain … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: Three controlled buys in three days is PC

DC: “police had probable cause to believe that Mr. Turner’s bullet-riddled car might contain bullet fragments from the shooting”

“There can be little question that the police had probable cause to believe that Mr. Turner’s car contained evidence of a crime. Four cars parked along the street, including Mr. Turner’s Lexus, were struck by bullets in a drive-by shooting. … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on DC: “police had probable cause to believe that Mr. Turner’s bullet-riddled car might contain bullet fragments from the shooting”

OH9: Smell of burnt MJ justified search even though officers found none

The smell of burnt marijuana justified the search of defendant’s car even though none was found. State v. Dejournett, 2026-Ohio-640 (9th Dist. Feb. 25, 2026).* An empty beer can in the beverage holder doesn’t justify a search of the car. … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH9: Smell of burnt MJ justified search even though officers found none

W.D.Okla.: Def bears no burden on applying crime-fraud exception to his cell phone search

The government seized this Oklahoman’s cell phone and searched it with a warrant. Oklahoma is largely marijuana legal. Pleading the crime-fraud exception, the government bears the burden of segregating the valid conversations from the federal conspiracy allegations. Defendant bears no … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Cell phones, Plain view, feel, smell, Privileges, Probable cause, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Def bears no burden on applying crime-fraud exception to his cell phone search