- OR: Guest standing is functional to the relationship to the residence and here didn’t cover under the back steps
- CA3: No REP from police being in a hotel hallway and then having RS for a frisk
- DC (en banc): Way off topic but important: Possibility of deportation makes a “petty” offense “serious” and requires a jury trial
- D.D.C.: Manafort DC search valid: The person on the lease of a storage unit and with the keys had [apparent] authority to consent
- CA7: In the private search doctrine and QI, it’s not clearly established that the actors knowing each other isn’t enough
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. 25k posts since 2003
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, other
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
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."
“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
"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
2017 ABA Journal Web 100
Category Archives: Consent
D.D.C.: Manafort DC search valid: The person on the lease of a storage unit and with the keys had [apparent] authority to consent
The search of Paul Manafort’s storage unit was with the consent of the person on the lease and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It was reasonable for the FBI to believe that the person with the keys had the … Continue reading →
The exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release proceedings. United States v. Hightower, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98320 (S.D. N.Y. June 12, 2018). The renter of the rental car was in it, and he voluntarily consented to … Continue reading →
D.Me.: In a knock-and-talk for CP, it was not unreasonable to tell defendant he had the choice of consenting to seizure of the computer or the house pending arrival of a SW
Officers came to defendant’s house essentially as a knock and talk to obtain child pornography on his computer which they knew he had. They told him he could consent to a seizure of the computer while they got a warrant … Continue reading →
D.Kan.: Officer’s attempt to use Google Translate to get consent to search car led to confusion; and govt failed in its burden of proof of voluntariness
Defendant was a native Spanish speaker, and the officer tried to use Google translate on his phone to ask him to consent to a search of this car. The result was confusing, and the court finds that the government failed … Continue reading →
CO: Voluntariness of consent is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence
Voluntariness of consent in Colorado is proved by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence. People v. Delage, 2018 CO 45, 2018 Colo. LEXIS 435 (May 30, 2018). The CI gave probable cause to stop defendant … Continue reading →
“When a person voluntarily accepts a ‘friend’ request on Facebook from an undercover police officer, and then exposes incriminating evidence, does the Fourth Amendment protect against this mistaken trust? We conclude that it does not.” Everett v. State, 2018 Del. … Continue reading →
OK: Even if protective sweep was pretextual, the case parallels McArthur and there was PC for warrant without it
The trial court held that the protective sweep here was pretextual and suppressed. The court of criminal appeals held that this case was strikingly similar to Illinois v. McArthur. There was valid third party consent to the entry. The information … Continue reading →
N.D.Ohio: Merely alleging the affiant never appeared before the issuing magistrate to sign it is nothing without proof to support it
Merely alleging the affiant never appeared before the issuing magistrate to sign it is nothing without proof to support it. The warrant says the affiant did. United States v. Oliver, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85865 (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2018). … Continue reading →
W.D.Wash.: Motel 6’s own policy of giving ICE & DHS its customer names doesn’t bring it within Patel
Motel 6 in Washington state was providing guest registry information to ICE and DHS, and the state sued them in state court. It was removed to federal court. The case is remanded. Because Motel 6 was providing it voluntarily, Patel … Continue reading →
KY: The objective evidence showed voluntary consent on totality; trial court erred in finding no consent
Defendant had a head injury and couldn’t remember the accident. Still, she was lucid when the officer talked to her, and she objectively consented on the objective facts. Her subjective belief wasn’t important. The trial court clearly erred in finding … Continue reading →
“Here, Moser gave his consent to the blood test while he was in the patrol car on the way to the hospital. … Officers read form DL-26 to Moser at the hospital, after he had already consented to the blood … Continue reading →
Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s driveway because he was a frequent overnight guest there, and he was coming there to spend the night. (There is a discussion of the semi-private nature of a driveway under … Continue reading →