Category Archives: Franks doctrine

M.D.Fla.: A records preservation request to cell phone providers was not a seizure

A records preservation letter sent to cell phone providers was not a seizure, let alone an unreasonable one. The records were later secured by search warrant. United States v. Zwiefelhofer, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134679 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2023). … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Seizure, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: A records preservation request to cell phone providers was not a seizure

E.D.Mich.: A place probationer spent some nights wasn’t his official residence for probation search

Probation staff and the government failed to prove that the place searched under a probation search condition was defendant’s place. He was permitted to stay with relatives on occasion but those were not his residences. The search is suppressed. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: A place probationer spent some nights wasn’t his official residence for probation search

CA6: Arrest paperwork delay here violated Riverside 48 hour rule

Officers’ apparent delays in processing paperwork on an arrest which resulted in plaintiff spending an extra two days in jail without any kind of probable cause finding violated clearly established law. Here, the prosecutor wouldn’t act without their paperwork. “It … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: Arrest paperwork delay here violated Riverside 48 hour rule

CA3: The search exceeding the scope of a warrant justified suppression

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 →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA3: The search exceeding the scope of a warrant justified suppression

W.D.Tenn.: Violation of police dept. vehicle chase policy doesn’t equate to a violation of the 4A

An alleged violation of department policy on police chases doesn’t equal a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Moore, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130238 (W.D. Tenn. July 27, 2023). Speeding and erratic driving justified the stop, and alcohol was seen … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Violation of police dept. vehicle chase policy doesn’t equate to a violation of the 4A

Cal.3: PC to search passenger compartment for gun didn’t extend to the trunk

Officers had probable cause to search defendant’s passenger compartment for a firearm. When the gun wasn’t found there, the officer searched the trunk, finding it. The probable cause, however, did not extend to the trunk. People v. Leal, 2023 Cal. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on Cal.3: PC to search passenger compartment for gun didn’t extend to the trunk

DE: SW issuing magistrate not barred from hearing suppression motion

The suppression hearing judge is not disqualified just because he or she considered the affidavit and issued the search warrant. Willis v. State, 2023 Del. LEXIS 238 (July 24, 2023). Setting inaccuracies in the search warrant affidavit aside, there was … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Neutral and detached magistrate, Reasonableness | Comments Off on DE: SW issuing magistrate not barred from hearing suppression motion

N.D.Ga.: Civilly committed have no REP in common computer files

The plaintiff is confined in the Texas Civil Commitment Center. He has no privacy interest in the files he’s saved on TCCC common computers for his cases. Rogers v. McLane, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125554 n. 11 (N.D. Tex. June … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Civilly committed have no REP in common computer files

MI: Omission def was a CI was not material where SW was based on possession and sale of drugs

“Agent Merle’s failure to reveal that Brown was a CI for DTF was not a material omission. As discussed previously, the warrant affidavit was based on Brown’s possession and sale of illegal drugs, which did not fall within the scope … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MI: Omission def was a CI was not material where SW was based on possession and sale of drugs

N.D.Iowa: Unsubstantiated rumor not RS

Defendant’s stop for being involved in a shooting which was based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor from an unsupported CI and the victim that he was involved was without reasonable suspicion. United States v. Cobbs, 2023 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Unsubstantiated rumor not RS

CA5: No REP in a video recorded by another of def committing a crime

While one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something he doesn’t own (as in bailment or contract), here it was a video recorded by another of him possessing firearms. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA5: No REP in a video recorded by another of def committing a crime

NY3: Where no information anyone else could be inside, no justification for protective sweep after def’s arrest

The police had no information even suggesting that another person was in the premises, and a protective sweep after defendant was arrested was unjustified. People v. Hadlock, 2023 NY Slip Op 03819, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839 (3d Dept. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause, Protective sweep, Strip search | Comments Off on NY3: Where no information anyone else could be inside, no justification for protective sweep after def’s arrest

E.D.La.: Leaving the wrong SW at the scene of the search is not a ground to suppress

Leaving the wrong search warrant at the scene of the search is not a ground to suppress. United States v. Major, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116569 (E.D. La. July 7, 2023). The CI had no track record, but his story … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.La.: Leaving the wrong SW at the scene of the search is not a ground to suppress

OH4: Entry to recover AR-15 was reasonable, even though it was hard to find

Officers responding to a 911 call were told there was an unsecured AR-15 in the house. The entry to retrieve it was reasonable, and Caniglia v. Strom is distinguishable. State v. Pine, 2023-Ohio-2191, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2166 (4th Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH4: Entry to recover AR-15 was reasonable, even though it was hard to find

TX1: 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette

A 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette. Small v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4610 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) June 29, 2023)* (unpublished) “These events establish probable cause, especially when … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TX1: 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette

N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

“If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial

Defendant’s refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial. Post-arrest cheek swabs do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they are accepted police booking and jailing procedures, similar to fingerprinting and photographing. … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial

NJ: Smell of mj in the passenger compartment doesn’t justify search of trunk or engine compartment

Where the officer smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment and searched for it finding nothing, a search of the engine compartment and trunk was excessive under the automobile exception. From the syllabus : “Expanding the search to the engine compartment … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on NJ: Smell of mj in the passenger compartment doesn’t justify search of trunk or engine compartment

M.D.Ala.: Address alone isn’t enough to confer standing in a mailed package; name on it has to be yours

Defendant wasn’t shown as an addressee of this package, but it was sent to his address. That alone doesn’t give him standing. United States v. Roberts, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107828 (M.D. Ala. May 18, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Address alone isn’t enough to confer standing in a mailed package; name on it has to be yours

CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown

2255 petitioner was in pretrial incarceration in the private jail in Leavenworth which notoriously recorded conversations between attorneys and clients. He pled guilty with the standard 2255 waiver. This violation of his rights does not survive the waiver, and he … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown