Category Archives: Franks doctrine

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

E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

The order to a motorist to lower his window is not a search, despite the fact the windows were heavily tinted and it made the interior more visible. Two pounds of cannabis on the car seat was probable cause for … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Search | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment complaint that attorney-client communications in jail were overheard does not survive summary judgment. He was a mere eight feet from the jailer who could clearly overhear everything. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

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

Posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

The district court lacked jurisdiction to order return of property under Rule 41(g) because it could not be shown that the government was in possession of the hard drive defendant sought return of. United States v. Toombs, 2023 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)