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
M.D.Fla.: Def was given guest standing to challenge a knock-and-talk that both sides agree was unreasonable
The knock-and-talk turned into a full scale raid, and the parties agree it was unreasonable. The R&R is rejected that defendant didn’t have standing. “The Court finds that defendant has standing to challenge the police conduct in and near the … Continue reading
D.N.M.: Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration
Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration. The Franks challenge fails. United States v. Martinez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192181 (D. N.M. Nov. 9, 2018). Defendant had standing to challenge the … Continue reading
The search warrants here were particular because the affidavits and attachments were incorporated by reference and present at the time of the search. The temporal limitations on the warrant were not vague and stale. It was limited in scope otherwise. … Continue reading
As an “intended recipient” of a parcel, defendant has no standing. His name isn’t on the package as sender or recipient. United States v. Williams, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177669 (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2018). Officers could reasonably believe that … Continue reading
A mere possessor/driver of a car has no standing in it, even allegedly with permission of the owner who was sitting in the car with him [and this certainly seems completely contrary to Bryd]. United States v. Gonzalez-Molina, 2018 U.S. … Continue reading
N.D.Ga.: Court assumes exclusionary rule applies to 404(b) evidence and finds 2003 search valid for trial in 2018; frisk of fannypack valid
Defendant moved to suppress 404(b) evidence of a 2003 stop and search that the government will offer into evidence in his current indictment involving allegations from 2014 going to trial shortly. The stop was on video, and the officer’s testimony … Continue reading
E.D.Tenn.: No standing in a shipped package found in another’s car where def’s name not on box as sender or recipient
Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of a previously shipped package located in another person’s vehicle that had his name nowhere on it as recipient or sender. Also, the search of the package was valid by consent and … Continue reading
Defense counsel’s decision not to call the defendant or other witnesses at a suppression hearing was a strategy decision not subject to second guessing except in extraordinary circumstances. Defense counsel concluded they lacked credibility. Here, defendant testified at trial to … Continue reading
Defendant made no attempt to show standing in the cell phone of another person that was lawfully seized incident to his arrest and in his pocket. He needed his own testimony or that of another to establish it. United States … Continue reading
Defendant was tried in 2011. He was scheduled to be sentenced in 2018. He filed a motion to reopen the suppression hearing of his CSLI obtained under the SCA because of Carpenter. Denied; good faith exception applies. United States v. … Continue reading
LA1: Changing suppression issue on appeal from lack of PC to arrest to an unreasonable search is waiver of the issue
Defendant’s motion changed from probable cause to arrest to whether there was an unreasonable search and seizure between the suppression hearing and the appeal. Thus, the issue for appeal wasn’t presented to the trial court, so it’s not preserved for … Continue reading
Cal.4th: Retroactive conversion of felony MJ conviction to civil infraction didn’t require lawfully collected DNA be purged from database
California’s retroactive conversion of personal use felony marijuana convictions to civil infractions does not warrant removal of defendant’s DNA from the system. People v. Laird, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 841 (4th Dist. Aug. 30, 2018), ordered published Sep. 21, 2018. … Continue reading