Category Archives: Informant hearsay

S.D.W.Va.: Informant here conducted warrantless search for the government

The informant was acting as an agent of the government in conducting the search here. United States v. Minkkinen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230696 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 7, 2026):

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Informant here conducted warrantless search for the government

CA5: Bogus traffic stop can’t support frisk

Plaintiff plausibly alleged a bogus traffic stop and so the frisk lacked reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. This is clearly established law. Rosales v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29016 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026). (Reason article here.) … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA5: Bogus traffic stop can’t support frisk

OH1: RS for stop on a prostitution 911 call even though def was significantly older than the person described in the call

Officers got a 911 call about potential prostitution with a woman approaching cars at an intersection known for that. It turned out she was significantly older than the person described in the 911 call, but there still was reasonable suspicion … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH1: RS for stop on a prostitution 911 call even though def was significantly older than the person described in the call

E.D.Mich.: ER nurse’s finding shell casing in def’s pants was private search

Defendant was in the ER and the hospital had his clothes. A spent shell casing was discovered in his pants by a nurse and it was turned over to the police. That was a private search. United States v. Young, … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Private search, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: ER nurse’s finding shell casing in def’s pants was private search

CA11: Possession of firearm in high crime area not RS

Possession of a firearm in one’s pocket in an open carry state is not reasonable suspicion. Being in a high crime area adds nothing to that. United States v. Joseph, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27723 (11th Cir. Sep. 9, 2026). … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA11: Possession of firearm in high crime area not RS

NC: Def’s bloody shirt seized as evidence from ER didn’t need a SW to test for DNA

Defendant was a suspect in a shooting incident. At the ER, his bloody shirt was collected as evidence. A separate search warrant wasn’t required to test the DNA on it. State v. Howze, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 652 (Aug. 5, … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, DNA, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on NC: Def’s bloody shirt seized as evidence from ER didn’t need a SW to test for DNA

FL3: Frisk can occur immediately after stop

The stop was with reasonable suspicion, and the frisk can occur immediately. The trial court’s holding it couldn’t has no support in law. State v. Lyles, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5911 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2026). The CI was … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Informant hearsay, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on FL3: Frisk can occur immediately after stop

N.D.N.Y.: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

Hearsay may be relied upon in a suppression hearing, and the confrontation clause doesn’t apply. United States v. Albert, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168169 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 2026):

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on N.D.N.Y.: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

Cal.4: No error not unsealing CI’s identity in SW application

The trial court didn’t err in refusing to unseal part of the search warrant affidavit that disclosed the identity of the CI because the state informer privilege applied. The sealing issue still gets reviewed on appeal where the court of … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonableness, Search incident, Seizure, Warrant papers | Comments Off on Cal.4: No error not unsealing CI’s identity in SW application

NY4: Payton does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building

Payton v. New York does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building. People v. Kadenhead, 2026 NY Slip Op 04680 (4th Dept. July 24, 2026). There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest on a … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY4: Payton does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building

S.D.Miss.: Ptf’s roadside vagina search states a claim

Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint over a roadside vaginal body cavity search concededly states enough to go forward as a potential Fourth Amendment violation. Some of the state claims fail. Upton v. Moulds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159277 (S.D. Miss. July … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Body searches, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Ptf’s roadside vagina search states a claim

MO: When officers came with an arrest warrant, def’s admission he had a firearm justified the entry

Officers came to defendant’s house with an arrest warrant. When they entered they asked him about any weapons in the house before a protective sweep. He directed them to a gun in the bedroom. That was all reasonable and inevitable … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Protective sweep, Standing | Comments Off on MO: When officers came with an arrest warrant, def’s admission he had a firearm justified the entry

CA6: CI’s lie to get into def’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate 4A

The informant’s lie to get into defendant’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210 (1966). United States v. Warick, 2026 U.S. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA6: CI’s lie to get into def’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate 4A

GA: No REP in what a security camera saw that def installed in friends’ house when he was there sexually assaulting their daughter

Defendant was a friend of the family, and he came over to install an additional security camera inside the house. Later, that camera caught him sexually assaulting one of the girls. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy despite spending … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Knock and talk, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on GA: No REP in what a security camera saw that def installed in friends’ house when he was there sexually assaulting their daughter

S.D.Fla.: Inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not unreasonable

A “clumsy” inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not an unreasonable inventory. No level of specificity is required. United States v. Samuels, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96304 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2026). The CSAM search warrant here for ten … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Inventory, Overbreadth | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not unreasonable

CA4: The fact that ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks

Defendant was charged with witness intimidation for contact with a witness in a criminal case of his. That charge was later dropped, and he sued. Defendants didn’t violate Franks by not mentioning that he never did it again. That’s not … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: The fact that ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks

E.D.Va.: Search incident could be done on FTA arrest

Defendant was arrested on a state Capias for FTA issued in open court. The search incident to the arrest was valid. United States v. Barnhart, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91284 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2026). Defendant’s conviction is affirmed. There … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Overbreadth, Search incident | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Search incident could be done on FTA arrest

CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

“The warrant authorized a search of 10 McGinnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. The correct address, Mr. Davis said, was 10 Meginnis Street, Eufaula, OK 74432. And beyond the address, the warrant contained no description of the house.” The suppression hearing … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Protective sweep, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on CA10: Disagreement over spelling of street name didn’t make warrant fail particularity; GFE at least would apply

D.Idaho: Not unreasonable for PO to hand over def’s cell phone to LEO for extraction after RS developed from Snapchat app

Defendant missed a PO visit, and they went to his house. There, they got his cell phone and looked at his Snapchat app finding messages between him and a 14 year old. It was not unreasonable for them to hand … Continue reading →

Posted in Body searches, Cell phones, Community caretaking function, Informant hearsay, Prison and jail searches, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Not unreasonable for PO to hand over def’s cell phone to LEO for extraction after RS developed from Snapchat app

D.Me.: Entering passcode into cell phone to see if it works is not a search

Defendant’s cell phone was seized and a warrant obtained to search it, but it was protected by a passcode and the phone was not searched. So, a couple of months later, they tried again with a new warrant. The information … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, DNA, Informant hearsay, Mail and packages, Prison and jail searches, Search | Comments Off on D.Me.: Entering passcode into cell phone to see if it works is not a search