Category Archives: Standing

S.D.N.Y.: Just because a cell phone was found in def’s car doesn’t mean he has standing to challenge its search

Defendant didn’t show standing to challenge the search of a cell phone found in his car that wasn’t his. United States v. Pulliam, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64356 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025). A search warrant for a Jan. 6th defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Just because a cell phone was found in def’s car doesn’t mean he has standing to challenge its search

D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

Defendant filed a motion in limine in lieu of a motion to suppress which was otherwise out of time. A motion in limine isn’t a substitute for a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court goes to the merits of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

S.D.N.Y.:The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing

“The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing. See, United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (‘[D]efendant could not challenge the search of a residence merely … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Custody, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.:The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing

E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

An overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard. United States v. Halley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53342 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025). Even if there was a false statement in the affidavit for search warrant, it … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

S.D.W.Va.: Def’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house

Defendant’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house. United States v. Arthur, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51621 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 20, 2025). Defendant failed to plead standing in his motion to suppress … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Def’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house

CA3: Apartment visitor to conduct drug deal has no standing

An apartment visitor to conduct a drug deal has no standing to contest a search that happened while he was there. United States v. Loyal, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5853 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2025). By collective knowledge, there was … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Pretext, Standards of review, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: Apartment visitor to conduct drug deal has no standing

WA: There was an objective basis for this stop even if with pretext

There was an objective basis for defendant’s stop, even if the officer had subjective motives. State v. Olson, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 423 (Mar. 11, 2025).* Defendant was in prison for about 20 years and there were phone calls between … Continue reading →

Posted in Pretext, Reasonableness, Standing | Comments Off on WA: There was an objective basis for this stop even if with pretext

CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC

The district court erred three ways in this case: The potential of a federal crime could be considered by the officer in determining probable cause. There was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The automobile exception applied. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC

CA6: Nexus to home based on controlled buys doesn’t require constant visual surveillance

Controlled buys that included trips to defendant’s house was nexus. “Regardless of whether Sims was constantly within the detectives’ view, the affidavit establishes that for each controlled buy, Sims went straight to the buy location from the residence and returned … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on CA6: Nexus to home based on controlled buys doesn’t require constant visual surveillance

CA2: 50 days of pole camera surveillance outside a business wasn’t unreasonable search

A pole camera outside defendant’s business for 50 days was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Harry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). Defendant was improperly denied a hearing. The codefendant had a suppression hearing … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras, Standing | Comments Off on CA2: 50 days of pole camera surveillance outside a business wasn’t unreasonable search

CA6: Franks argument subsumed within PC argument is treated as waived

Defendant’s Franks argument was skeletal and subsumed within his lack of probable cause argument. It is treated as waived. “And we consider arguments forfeited where ‘[i]ssues [are] adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation.’” … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Standing, Waiver | Comments Off on CA6: Franks argument subsumed within PC argument is treated as waived

W.D.Tex.: Body camera shows stop was unreasonably prolonged

“After considering all evidence in context, including Officer Gonzalez’s testimony, her body camera video, and the rest of the record, the Court concludes that she unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop. Even when considering her experience and all facts from an … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Body camera shows stop was unreasonably prolonged

TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

Defendant’s furtive movements supported exigency that he could attempt to erase things on his cell phone thus justifying its warrantless seizure. Igboji v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1021 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Feb. 20, 2025) (unpublished), on … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Custody, Emergency / exigency, Standing | Comments Off on TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

W.D.Ky.: Police battering ram to door and shots fired inside is a seizure

In the Brianna Taylor civil rights prosecution, the battering ram to the door of the apartment with shots being fired was a seizure of the occupants. United States v. Hankison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29347 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2025).* … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Seizure, Standing, Warrant papers | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Police battering ram to door and shots fired inside is a seizure

S.D.N.Y.: Sublessee of apartment had standing

Sublessee of an apartment had standing to challenge its search. This can’t be compared to burglars or squatters. United States v. Ephron, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28794 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2025). Defendant wasn’t seized during his encounter with the police … Continue reading →

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Seizure, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Sublessee of apartment had standing

CA11: Days of constant pole camera surveillance didn’t state a 4A claim

“As to the pole cameras, we hold that their use did not violate Williamson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The pole cameras surveilled areas exposed to the public, and the fact that they recorded non-stop is of little relevance—the Constitution does not … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Days of constant pole camera surveillance didn’t state a 4A claim

D.N.H.: Affidavit for SW showed def’s standing

“Examining the totality of the circumstances, the evidence shows that the officers reasonably believed that Guerrero-Nuñez lived in Apartment 204 and would be present when they entered the apartment. As such, their entry into the apartment did not violate Guerrero-Nuñez’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.H.: Affidavit for SW showed def’s standing

CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

The initial detention and exterior inspection of the parcel sent to defendant did not implicate his Fourth Amendment rights because it occurred within the guaranteed delivery window. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of the parcel … Continue reading →

Posted in Mail and packages, Motion to suppress, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: There is no REP in the exterior of a package in transit

AR: Questions about legality of search before jury properly excluded under 403

Where the trial court denied the pretrial motion to suppress, cross-examination of the officer about the legality of the search was properly denied on objection by the state as potentially misleading to the jury. Damon v. State, 2025 Ark. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on AR: Questions about legality of search before jury properly excluded under 403

M.D.Fla.: Denying knowledge of the car involved was a lack of standing

Denying knowledge of the car involved was a lack of standing. United States v. Powers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237574 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8322 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2025). “The totality of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Denying knowledge of the car involved was a lack of standing