- NYTimes: N.S.A. Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
- Cal.2d: Emergency aid search of wrong house was still objectively reasonable
- CA10: Successful suppression of evidence is not a “favorable outcome” for malicious prosecution purposes against the prosecutor; QI granted
- D.Kan.: 37 day old knowledge of def’s suspended DL wasn’t stale for RS for a stop
- D.Mont.: Possession of a camera phone was violation of release conditions and justified PO search
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. 20k 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 still learn something new every day.”
—Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, "The Who Live at Hyde Park" (Showtime 2015)
"I can't talk about my singing. I'm inside it. How can you describe something you're inside of?"
"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)
Category Archives: Consent
OH5: Helicopter flyover discovery of MJ plants didn’t justify warrantless entry into curtilage; open fields search valid
The helicopter flyover of defendant’s property gave probable cause but no exception to the warrant requirement. The officers could enter up the driveway, and then consent to enter was given. The marijuana plants in the woods were in open fields. … Continue reading →
OH4: Isolated unsolicited comment def refused to consent to search was not error and was harmless error at best
An isolated comment volunteered by a witness that defendant refused to consent to a search that was never mentioned again wasn’t error. Even so, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming so it’s harmless. State v. Angus, 2017-Ohio-1100, 2017 Ohio App. … Continue reading →
Defendant’s consent to search his cell phone for child pornography was voluntary. A host of facts support voluntariness. United States v. Mays, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5246 (6th Cir. March 23, 2017)*:
OH5: Consent was invalid when def was told she’d only be charged with tampering if she didn’t disclose the heroin on her person
The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that defendant’s consent to search was not freely and voluntarily given because the officer’s explanation to defendant incorrectly intimated that she could be charged with tampering with evidence if it was concealed on … Continue reading →
The officer did not return the defendant’s driver’s license to him before beginning to question him while in his car in a hotel parking lot. Thus, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. Therefore, it was a … Continue reading →
A search warrant for “pornography” that “constitutes a crime” is specific enough to include child pornography despite the fact that adult pornography isn’t a crime. There was also probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Barthman, … Continue reading →
D.Mont.: Def’s live-in girlfriend’s consent was enough to expand the SW beyond its particularity; she volunteered something police weren’t even looking for
Defendant had an argument with his live-in girlfriend which escalated about the time the police arrived to hear it outside. They got a search warrant for his handgun, some papers, and her belongings to help her get out. She assisted … Continue reading →
S.D.Ala.: Hitting fog line 8 times is reason for a stop even if it doesn’t necessarily violation AL law
Touching the fog line once isn’t an offense (and dozens of cases are cited), but eight times is reasonable suspicion for a stop and at least justifies it under Heien: “While the Court questions whether touching or slightly crossing a … Continue reading →
The juvenile didn’t consent because he was too young to think independently when confronted by police officers. They did, however, have reasonable suspicion for his stop for violating curfew. In re Elijah W., 2017 IL App (1st) 162648, 2017 Ill. … Continue reading →
AZ: Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis GFE applies
Non-consensual blood draw DUI provision is unconstitutional as applied, but the Davis good faith exception applies here. Defendant was airlifted to a Nevada hospital for the blood draw. The trial court didn’t make findings on whether Nevada or Arizona law … Continue reading →