Category Archives: Consent

CA4: Search of unlocked van with door ajar left overnight on bank parking lot with visible assault rifle was reasonable under community caretaking function

A bank employee saw a van parked on the bank’s lot that had been there overnight. Officers responded and saw an assault rifle in the passenger compartment. “Around 12:30 [p.m.], without knocking or announcing their presence, Lambert and Wagner pulled … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: Search of unlocked van with door ajar left overnight on bank parking lot with visible assault rifle was reasonable under community caretaking function

IN: Drug dog’s half sitting alert was still reliable

“In contrast, here the State established that Maverick was a certified drug sniffing dog with a history of reliability. Maverick’s behavior, even without a full final response of sitting, was sufficient to indicate that he had detected the odors of … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN: Drug dog’s half sitting alert was still reliable

CA1: Vertical collective knowledge applied; horizontal doesn’t have to be decided

Vertical collective knowledge clearly applies where an officer directed another to make a stop. Therefore, the bounds of horizontal collective knowledge doesn’t matter here. United States v. Balser, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 15060 (1st Cir. June 16, 2023) (a good … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Consent, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA1: Vertical collective knowledge applied; horizontal doesn’t have to be decided

KY: The conditions of parole factor into reasonableness of a parole search

Defendant did not properly preserve his state constitutional claim that warrantless parole searches should be more protective of a suspect’s rights than the Fourth Amendment. On the Fourth Amendment claim, the search complied with Samson and Knights. The conditions of … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, DNA, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on KY: The conditions of parole factor into reasonableness of a parole search

NY Kings Co.: State can rely on circumstantial evidence to support CIs

“The district attorney can rely on circumstantial evidence to demonstrate an adequate basis of knowledge for the information conveyed …. But not in this case. The mere fact that the Warrants Squad arrested Lewis at the target location does not … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Excessive force, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on NY Kings Co.: State can rely on circumstantial evidence to support CIs

CA2: Is the SW description for electronic data “the best that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances”

In a warrant for electronic data, “the Fourth Amendment does not demand ‘a perfect description of the data to be searched and seized.’ … Rather, ‘some ambiguity’ is permitted ‘so long as law enforcement agents have done the best that … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Consent, E-mail, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA2: Is the SW description for electronic data “the best that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances”

WA: Driver couldn’t consent to search of passenger’s backpacks

Defendant was in a car that was stopped for a traffic offense. He had warrants and he tried to flee the scene, but didn’t get far. In the car were his backpacks. The driver consented to a search of the … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Custody, Franks doctrine, Scope of search, Voluntariness | Comments Off on WA: Driver couldn’t consent to search of passenger’s backpacks

GA: Cell phone call SW was limited and not overbroad

The warrant for the cell phone’s call data was limited in time and reasonable. “Because, using a practical margin of flexibility, the date ranges in the search warrants were as specific as the circumstances and nature of the activity under … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Overbreadth, Scope of search | Comments Off on GA: Cell phone call SW was limited and not overbroad

CA11: Drug dog arriving before warning ticket done did not extend stop

Where the drug dog arrived before the warning ticket was finished, the stop was not unlawfully extended. United States v. Gutierrez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12811 (11th Cir. May 24, 2023). Child protection officers obtained consent to enter plaintiff’s home. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on CA11: Drug dog arriving before warning ticket done did not extend stop

CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

The suppression “hearing” was a five-minute discussion of the law, and there were no factual disputes presented. Therefore, “defendant need not be present for any ‘conference or hearing on a question of law.’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(3).” United States … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

Alleged lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress. United States v. Pollard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88536 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2023). Defendant’s Fourth Amendment issues on appeal are not the … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Motion to suppress, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Lack of a proper chain of custody is not a ground for a motion to suppress

NY Albany Co.: Overbroad location data search remedied by narrowing to two hours

The search warrant for defendant’s location data for the week before and week after the crime was overbroad. The court instead allows the state to use the hour before and hour after. People v. Williams, 2023 NY Slip Op 23137, … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Consent, Issue preclusion, Overbreadth | Comments Off on NY Albany Co.: Overbroad location data search remedied by narrowing to two hours

W.D.Mich.: Prison CAT scan for contraband was reasonable

A prison CAT scan for contraband was less intrusive than a strip or body cavity search, so it was reasonable. Pouncy v. Bush, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78217 (W.D. Mich. May 4, 2023). Reasonable suspicion for a traffic violation to … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: Prison CAT scan for contraband was reasonable

NJ: Common authority to search a storage unit doesn’t necessarily include authority to search bags within

After a search warrant produced nothing, the domestic battery complainant had common authority to consent to a search of a storage trailer to seize weapons, but not to search the bags that the weapons were found in. “A third party’s … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Consent, Good faith exception, Scope of search | Comments Off on NJ: Common authority to search a storage unit doesn’t necessarily include authority to search bags within

D.Kan.: “Indicia of ownership” in a SW not overbroad

Inclusion of “indicia of ownership” of the place searched doesn’t show the warrant was not particular. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73033 (D. Kan. Apr. 26, 2023). Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, although there was … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: “Indicia of ownership” in a SW not overbroad

D.Nev.: GFE does not save GPS tracking of additional driver of vehicle

Rubin, a regular driver of defendant’s pickup had standing to challenge a tracking warrant put on it. The issuing judge, however, appears only to have authorized the tracking of Morgan’s use. The court declines to apply the good faith exception. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Good faith exception, Immigration checkpoints, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on D.Nev.: GFE does not save GPS tracking of additional driver of vehicle

CA7: Renting a condo under an assumed name to avoid arrest doesn’t show no REP; landlord could not consent

Defendant rented a condo in Atlanta, deceiving the landlord by using an assumed name. The landlord consented to a search. The landlord had no power to consent to a search. People rent hotel rooms and apartments and even buy houses … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Staleness | Comments Off on CA7: Renting a condo under an assumed name to avoid arrest doesn’t show no REP; landlord could not consent

FL2: Def’s mental health seizure was unreasonable under state law; his search incident thus was unreasonable

Defendant’s mental health seizure didn’t comply with state law and was unreasonable. There was no face-to-face meeting to evaluate his condition required by law. His girlfriend had reported that he was sending suicidal text messages. K.M. v. State, 2023 Fla. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Probation / Parole search, Search incident | Comments Off on FL2: Def’s mental health seizure was unreasonable under state law; his search incident thus was unreasonable

Cal.2: Geofence warrant was a bit overbroad, but GFE still applies

A geofence warrant was sought in 2019 for Google which provided several subject phones in the vicinity of a murder. The court finds the warrant was not particular enough, but applies the good faith exception because geofence warrants were so … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, geofence, Good faith exception, Particularity | Comments Off on Cal.2: Geofence warrant was a bit overbroad, but GFE still applies

Cal.4: Misdemeanants stated claim that DNA testing of them was a violation of state right of privacy

Plaintiffs stated a claim that the Orange County program for collection of DNA from misdemeanants violated their right to privacy. There may be instances were a misdemeanor may be a “serious crime” but in general, no. The trial court erred … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, DNA, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on Cal.4: Misdemeanants stated claim that DNA testing of them was a violation of state right of privacy