- CA10: Successful suppression of evidence is not a “favorable outcome” for malicious prosecution purposes against the prosecutor; QI granted
- D.Kan.: 37 day old knowledge of def’s suspended DL wasn’t stale for RS for a stop
- D.Mont.: Possession of a camera phone was violation of release conditions and justified PO search
- W.D.N.Y.: SW materials not yet releasable because investigation is ongoing; defense can get it later
- NYTimes: Do Body Cameras Help Policing? 1,200 New York Officers Aim to Find Out
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. 20k 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, other
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
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 still learn something new every day.”
—Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, "The Who Live at Hyde Park" (Showtime 2015)
"I can't talk about my singing. I'm inside it. How can you describe something you're inside of?"
"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)
Category Archives: Knock and announce
Worcester Telegram (MA): Broken door, broken promise: Police renege on pledge for judicial permission for no-knock raids
Worcester Telegram (MA): Broken door, broken promise: Police renege on pledge for judicial permission for no-knock raids by Brad Petrishen: State police declined to say why they reversed course on the external control, and also declined to discuss an apparently … Continue reading
AR: Knock-and-announce applies to parole searches, but Hudson adopted and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply
The knock-and-announce rule applies to parole searches, and violation of the rule is a substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. The court adopts Hudson, however, and finds that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Lane … Continue reading
The officers’ failure to knock-and-announce (really wait long enough) before entry does not invoke the exclusionary rule under Michigan v. Hudson. People v. Byers, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1087 (4th Dist. Dec. 14, 2016):
AR: While SW must be issued on affidavit or recorded testimony, questions about no-knock didn’t have to be recorded, especially when no-knock refused
Search warrants must be issued on affidavits or recorded testimony. The issuing judge asked questions about the no-knock entry, and this was separate from probable cause finding. This did not have to be recorded. Besides, the judge denied the no-knock … Continue reading
D.Conn.: Violation of knock-and-announce on a 6 am arrest warrant execution leads to suppression despite Hudson
The defendant’s house was entered at 6 am with an arrest warrant, and the officers knocked and entered when there was no prompt answer. The court credits the testimony of the occupants and the time involved and not the officer … Continue reading
A failure to properly knock-and-announce an entry does not warrant suppression, following Hudson v. Michigan. State v. Bembry, 2015-Ohio-5598, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 5397 (7th Dist. December 30, 2015). [Yes, just now on Lexis.] The motion to suppress is denied … Continue reading
CA9: A “dilapidated” shack behind a house on the curtilage was still a place subject to the Fourth Amendment
A “dilapidated” shack behind a house on the curtilage was still a place subject to the Fourth Amendment, but the entry without a warrant claim goes forward. They get qualified immunity on the knock-and-announce violation. Deputies entered and shot a … Continue reading
NE: Failure to announce entry to execute a misd warrant on ptf’s grandson survived summary judgment; interests rule serves are important
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for officers who entered plaintiff’s home to arrest her grandson without announcing and with force. A question of fact is presented on the failure to announce, and it serves important interests. The … Continue reading
PA: Knock-and-announce rule in PA exists by court rule, and it serves important interests; the remedy for violation is suppression of evidence; Hudson not followed
The knock-and-announce rule in Pennsylvania exists by court rule, and it serves important interests. The remedy for violation is suppression of evidence. Pennsylvania does not follow Hudson v. Michigan. Commonwealth v. Frederick, 2015 PA Super 206, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS … Continue reading
S.D.Ala.: No-knock warrant was permissible here because of the expected presence of firearms and defendant used surveillance cameras
A no-knock warrant was permissible here because of the expected presence of firearms and defendant used surveillance cameras on the property. United States v. Miller, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93857 (S.D.Ala. July 20, 2015): Miller also argues the affidavit did … Continue reading