Category Archives: Probable cause

W.D.Pa.: ALPR hit on stolen vehicle was RS for stop

A U-Haul van was reported stolen by them, and the LPN was entered into the ALPR database. It showed up near Pittsburgh, and that was reasonable suspicion to pull it over. United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177108 … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automatic license plate readers, Custody, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: ALPR hit on stolen vehicle was RS for stop

CA6: SW in drug case led to finding CSAM, SW was still particular

Defendant was a suspect in a drug investigation, and they got search warrants for his place and cell phones, not knowing even how many there were or what they looked like. The warrants were with probable cause. The search for … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA6: SW in drug case led to finding CSAM, SW was still particular

S.D.Ohio: Drug dog sticking head partially into open door area was at least with reasonable suspicion

“[W]here a dog only partially and briefly pokes their head into the interior of a vehicle, as Cody did here, such does not constitute a search. Fellmy, 165 F.4th at 506 (citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408-09) (finding a dog … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Drug dog sticking head partially into open door area was at least with reasonable suspicion

D.Me.: Failure of drug dog to alert is a factor in totality

The failure of the drug dog to alert doesn’t completely undermine probable case, but it is a factor in the totality of circumstances. Here, the government didn’t meet its burden. United States v. Presby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172828 (D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Me.: Failure of drug dog to alert is a factor in totality

CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

The controlled buy off defendant gave probable cause to search his car after he left it, irrespective of an alleged pretextual traffic stop and use of a drug dog. United States v. Randle, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22657 (7th Cir. … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Privileges, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

OH1: Even with MJ use being legal, driving under influence isn’t

While small amounts of marijuana are legal in Ohio, driving under the influence is not, so the smell of burnt marijuana in a vehicle is probable cause. Also, a blunt was seen in the ashtray. State v. Sawyer, 2026-Ohio-2913 (1st … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH1: Even with MJ use being legal, driving under influence isn’t

D.P.R.: A shed on the curtilage was within scope of SW

It was reasonable for officers to search a shed on the curtilage; it was within the scope of the search warrant. United States v. Torres-Benitez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165162 (D.P.R. July 24, 2026). The CI said he could get … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Drug or alcohol testing, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.P.R.: A shed on the curtilage was within scope of SW

FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

This being a warrantless search during a traffic stop with a drug dog, the state bore the burden of proof on justification for detention for the dog sniff, and it failed to show that the stop was lawfully continued. Reversed. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

MI: Possession of MJ that’s only a civil infraction doesn’t justify search of car under automobile exception

Michigan, by ballot initiative, made possession of a small amount of marijuana a civil infraction. The smell of marijuana here only appeared to be a civil infraction and not a crime, so the automobile exception did not justify the search … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on MI: Possession of MJ that’s only a civil infraction doesn’t justify search of car under automobile exception

D.Idaho: Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on property is a separate living quarters requiring separate PC and nexus

“The Court agrees with Mr. Newby that the ADU [accessory dwelling unit] was its own residence—not curtilage—and therefore required its own probable cause finding. By authorizing the search of both residences, the warrant was indeed defective. But crucially, law enforcement … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on property is a separate living quarters requiring separate PC and nexus

D.Alaska: Def’s half hour detention was without RS

Defendant was detained, but not arrested, for over half an hour, and the court finds it was without reasonable suspicion, and the result should be suppressed. United States v. Vue, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158591 (D. Alaska July 17, 2026). … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Def’s half hour detention was without RS

CA9: When the PC for SW dissipates, the search must stop; no GFE

“This case raises the familiar, but always troubling, question whether someone can be prosecuted for despicable criminal conduct using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Here, officers conducting a search of Defendant John Holcomb’s computer, pursuant to a … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Burden of pleading, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on CA9: When the PC for SW dissipates, the search must stop; no GFE

CA4: Cell phone non-forensic border search doesn’t require individualized suspicion

“Border searches do not require a warrant to be reasonable. And if a border search is routine, individualized suspicion is not required either. But law enforcement may not conduct a nonroutine border search without individualized suspicion. Under our precedent, forensic … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Nexus, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: Cell phone non-forensic border search doesn’t require individualized suspicion

CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

CA7: It wasn’t a 4A violation to place a pole camera to look over def’s fence he built knowing he was under surveillance

Defendant knew he was under surveillance by police, so he installed a wooden privacy fence around his business property. So, police put a pole camera so they could look over the fence. The pole camera didn’t need a warrant. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Pole cameras, Probable cause, Search incident | Comments Off on CA7: It wasn’t a 4A violation to place a pole camera to look over def’s fence he built knowing he was under surveillance

TX1: Defendant had no REP in a package of drugs he never possessed and on another person

Defendant lacked standing to suppress 4,100 grams of ketamine seized from Brown because he never possessed the package, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in package of drugs carried by Brown, and the ketamine was recovered away from him during … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on TX1: Defendant had no REP in a package of drugs he never possessed and on another person

N.D.Tex.: AUSA can summarize what the gov’t knows for SW application

An AUSA can write a search warrant application summarizing what he or she knows from the investigation even though it includes some conclusions. It’s based here on facts the government believes it can prove. In re Larksuktom, 2026 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Warrant papers, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: AUSA can summarize what the gov’t knows for SW application

S.D.N.Y.: SW not based on mere speculation

Defendant argues the search warrant was based on speculation, but it wasn’t. United States v. Savage, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138078 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2026)*:

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: SW not based on mere speculation

M.D.Pa.: SW for phone 19 months after alleged crimes showed PC

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was issued in December 2024 for alleged crimes in April and May 2023. There was still probable cause despite the possibility that defendant had a different phone by then. The search was based … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: SW for phone 19 months after alleged crimes showed PC

CO: Facebook SW lacked PC

Social media search warrant for defendant’s Facebook account was invalid because there was no indication that he communicated with his sex assault victims through it. People v. Van Eck, 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 1043 (June 11, 2026) (unpublished):

Posted in Probable cause, Social media warrants | Comments Off on CO: Facebook SW lacked PC