- PA: Birchfield doesn’t prevent evidence of refusal
- VA: Lying to police during consensual encounter then refusing admittance to home isn’t obstruction
- E.D.N.Y.: Facebook SW was far too broad, but court declines to decide 4A question and goes with GFE instead
- Forbes: Cop Who Accidentally Shot 10-Year-Old When Aiming For Family Dog Can’t Be Sued, Federal Court Rules
- Bloomberg: You’re Home Alone With Alexa. Are Your Secrets Safe?
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
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF
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: Standing
Byrd does not confer standing in a rented car part of a two-car caravan where defendant didn’t rent the other car and wasn’t even in it. United States v. Beauregard, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106904 (D. Me. June 26, 2019). … Continue reading
Defendant argued he had standing in a car because he was more than a mere passenger because of how the drugs were hidden and “because ‘[h]e had access to parts of the car that were not normally accessible to a … Continue reading
MN: Search of rented room in single family dwelling was reasonable under SW; it wasn’t apparent it was rented
In a stipulated evidence suppression hearing, defendant did not preserve the issue he presents for appeal. Going to the merits anyway, defendant claimed that his rented room in what was, for all appearances, a single family dwelling was reasonable. The … Continue reading
Defendant lacked standing to contest the CSLI acquisition of his co-conspirator’s cell phone when the police were looking for both. The same rule applies to his Fourth Amendment claim and his claim under Maine’s Electronic Device Location Information Act. State … Continue reading
PA: ID made as a result of warrantless search suppressed, but that which was seen before may be testified to
An officer’s identification made wholly as a result of a warrantless search renders that identification tainted and inadmissible. If, however, eyewitness identification of a defendant occurred prior to illegal conduct by law enforcement may be admissible, if based on observations … Continue reading
The witness on standing gave two inconsistent versions: under oath and to the police and the court cannot credit her. “Importantly, Defendant has offered no proof, other than Ms. Harris’s testimony, that he was an overnight guest in the Apartment. … Continue reading
N.D.Cal.: 41-day delay from seizure to search of a cell phone wasn’t constitutionally unreasonable on these facts
41-day delay between seizure of cell phone and its search, while not good, wasn’t constitutionally unreasonable under all the circumstances, primarily because defendant was in custody and couldn’t use the phone anyway, so it didn’t intrude on his possessory interests. … Continue reading
“The dog sniff began roughly 12 minutes and 45 seconds into the traffic stop. At that point, Martin had provided two driver’s licenses that spelled his name differently and had verbally provided a separate birth date that did not match … Continue reading
W.D.La.: Shipping a FedEx package under an assumed name to an assumed name did not deprive either of standing
The court finds standing in a FedEx package that had a fictitious name of both sender and recipient. A dog sniff of the package gave probable cause. United States v. Goodin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95071 (W.D. La. May 20, … Continue reading
Defendant claimed that part of the facts of probable cause in the affidavit for his search warrant shouldn’t have been considered because of an illegal search of another. He doesn’t have standing to contest that search, and it can be … Continue reading
C.D.Ill.: Issue preclusion doesn’t fairly apply to officers in § 1983 case after suppression in state court
Issue preclusion would not be applied to preclude defendant officers from litigating the legality of a search that defendant prevailed upon in state court. Applying state law on issue preclusion, it would be unfair to apply it to officers who … Continue reading