Category Archives: Search incident

E.D.Mo.: Protective sweep permissible even after def removed from premises

A protective sweep is for persons, and it is reasonable to conduct one after defendant was removed from the premises. United States v. Spann, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105082 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 15, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104446 … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Search incident, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Protective sweep permissible even after def removed from premises

Cal.1: GFE applied to probation search term

The good faith exception applied to defendant’s probation search. The officer checked and reasonably concluded that defendant was still on searchable probation at the time. People v. Pritchett, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 348 (1st Dist. May 8, 2024), certified for … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Cell phones, Good faith exception, Probation / Parole search, Search incident, Strip search | Comments Off on Cal.1: GFE applied to probation search term

MO: Search incident can happen at mobile booking center without going to jail

A search incident can occur even where defendant is at a mobile booking place without being transported to jail. State v. Boehmer, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 314 (May 14, 2024). Defendant’s concession in the trial court that the stop and … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Reasonableness, Search incident, Waiver | Comments Off on MO: Search incident can happen at mobile booking center without going to jail

MN: No difference between the privacy interest in DNA abandoned at the scene of a crime and the specific genetic information within it

There’s no difference between the privacy interest in DNA abandoned at the scene of a crime and the specific genetic information within it. State v. Carbo, 2024 Minn. LEXIS 236 (May 8, 2024). [A creative argument, but one always doomed … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Search incident, Waiver | Comments Off on MN: No difference between the privacy interest in DNA abandoned at the scene of a crime and the specific genetic information within it

D.Colo.: Four day delay in getting SW for seized car wasn’t unreasonable

The seizure of this car was with probable cause that a gun would be found in it. The four day delay in applying for a search warrant for the car was not unreasonable. As to standing, defendant transferred ownership of … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonableness, Search incident | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Four day delay in getting SW for seized car wasn’t unreasonable

M.D.Pa.: Def was neither shipper nor recipient of USPS parcel, so he had no standing in it

Defendant was neither the shipper nor recipient of a USPS parcel with drugs in it, opened six weeks after it was unclaimed. He had no standing in it. United States v. Bell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78182 (M.D. Pa. Apr. … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Inventory, Mail and packages, Search incident, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Def was neither shipper nor recipient of USPS parcel, so he had no standing in it

MI: Pants seized incident to arrest can be forensically tested without a SW

Defendant’s pants were seized incident to his arrest for murder because there was apparent blood on them. They were subject to being forensically tested without a separate warrant. Any reasonable expectation of privacy was lost with the seizure. People v. … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Search incident | Comments Off on MI: Pants seized incident to arrest can be forensically tested without a SW

CA8: Police placed a hidden camera across from def’s apt door and used information from it in showing PC for SW; there was PC without it

“Darron Mayo appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a hidden camera police officers placed across from his apartment door. Officers used some of the evidence obtained from the camera in a probable cause affidavit supporting … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras, Search incident | Comments Off on CA8: Police placed a hidden camera across from def’s apt door and used information from it in showing PC for SW; there was PC without it

S.D.Fla.: Emergency motion to quash SW denied; def can still file a motion to suppress

The target of a search filed an emergency motion to quash a search warrant for DNA to compare it to a firearm but without a showing there was DNA on the gun. The motion is denied, but the target can … Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Search incident | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Emergency motion to quash SW denied; def can still file a motion to suppress

WA: Brief detention on no bail FTA warrant wasn’t unreasonable where there was a PC determination within 48 hours

A no bail bench warrant for FTA wasn’t unreasonable because a probable cause determination was made within 48 hours. State v. Clare, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 462 (Mar. 12, 2024). Defendant’s search incident occurred before the arrest. To be lawful, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Qualified immunity, Search incident | Comments Off on WA: Brief detention on no bail FTA warrant wasn’t unreasonable where there was a PC determination within 48 hours

MO: Search incident to 96 hour mental health hold was reasonable

Defendant was picked up on a warrant for 96 hour mental commitment hold. The search incident to that was reasonable. “[T]he deputies’ search of Salcedo, incident to Salcedo being taken into custody pursuant to a warrant under section 632.305 for … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonableness, Search incident | Comments Off on MO: Search incident to 96 hour mental health hold was reasonable

N.D.Cal.: Failure to pursue alleged traffic violation made stop unreasonable

Defendant was stopped ostensibly for a traffic violation, and he was handcuffed and the officers literally did nothing to investigate that–they didn’t even ask for his license and registration. Despite the fact Whren says pretext doesn’t matter, that lack of … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Failure to pursue alleged traffic violation made stop unreasonable

TX1: Arrest on PC when standing next to vehicle justified its search incident

Defendant’s arrest for a parole violation while he was standing next to his vehicle resulted in a search of the person finding drugs, and that justified a search incident of the vehicle, too. Badyrka v. State, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Search incident | Comments Off on TX1: Arrest on PC when standing next to vehicle justified its search incident

CA10: City driveway shared with house next door not curtilage

A driveway shared with the house next door was not curtilage. A driveway in a city usually isn’t anyway. United States v. Vasquez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 75 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2024). Defendant’s objection to the R&R that the … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Franks doctrine, Search incident | Comments Off on CA10: City driveway shared with house next door not curtilage

Two search incidents based on containers

The district court denied suppression of the search of defendant’s backpack on him at the time of his arrest based on a 1975 case, Eatherton, post-Chimel, Robinson, and Edwards. The court finds that case was not undermined by Chadwick and … Continue reading

Posted in Search incident | Comments Off on Two search incidents based on containers

CA6: Def’s getting CI’s call and driving to controlled buy and home was nexus for SW

Defendant’s being in his home when he received a call from the CI for a controlled buy and then his driving to the buy and back was sufficient nexus. United States v. Badley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33031 (6th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Nexus, Qualified immunity, Search incident | Comments Off on CA6: Def’s getting CI’s call and driving to controlled buy and home was nexus for SW

OH7: Taking backpack of arrestee to handcuff doesn’t make it not subject to search incident

“Appellant had the bag on her back at the time the officer arrested her for obstructing official business. The officer’s removal of the bag from the arrestee in order to handcuff her did not eliminate his ability to search the … Continue reading

Posted in Foreign searches, Search incident, Seizure | Comments Off on OH7: Taking backpack of arrestee to handcuff doesn’t make it not subject to search incident

D.N.M.: Greyhound’s cooperation with the DEA doesn’t give rise to a 4A cause of action against it

Just because Greyhound cooperates with the DEA in Albuquerque doesn’t mean it can be sued there under the Fourth Amendment. Fernandez v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211564 (D.N.M. Nov. 28, 2023). Homeless in Los Angeles likely had … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Search incident | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Greyhound’s cooperation with the DEA doesn’t give rise to a 4A cause of action against it

CA7: Misuse of dealer tag justified search incident

The district court decided this vehicle search on inventory. On appeal, the court goes with search incident because the vehicle was being driven with improper dealer tags. Officer “Hobbs’s search of the glovebox incident to Travis’s arrest was proper. Evidence … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Search incident, Waiver | Comments Off on CA7: Misuse of dealer tag justified search incident

NC: Search incident doesn’t apply to hit-and-run; automobile exception didn’t apply to car partly submerged in ditch

Defendant was the passenger in a car owned by her parents involved in a hit-and-run that fled the scene and ended up in a ditch. The driver ran off because he said he had warrants. She gave the driver’s name. … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Search incident | Comments Off on NC: Search incident doesn’t apply to hit-and-run; automobile exception didn’t apply to car partly submerged in ditch