- N.D.Ga.: Failure to specify how the R&R was deficient on PC finding was waiver
- Ga.Bar J.: Who Should Guard the Attorney-Client Privilege When Documents are Seized by Law Enforcement,
- OR: For particularity in electronic devices, specify what will be found
- W.D.N.C.: Traffic stop for expired tags went right to criminal history and was overlong
- ID rejects “reasonable mistake of law” and Heien under state constitution; state’s exclusionary rule is broader
ABA Journal Web 100, Best Law Blogs (2017); ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2015-16) (discontinued 2018)
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book
online since Feb. 24, 2003 Approx. 350,000 visits (non-robot) since 2012 Approx. 45,000 posts since 2003 (25,700+ on WordPress as of 12/31/22)
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
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"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
Category Archives: Motion to suppress
S.D.Ill.: When moving to suppress “data” one has to be specific
Defendant’s motion to suppress “data” and “associated data” fails because of his failure to show what and where it was or could be. (It kind of becomes a general motion to suppress.) United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading
E.D.N.Y.: Without knowing what to suppress, motion to suppress is premature
Defendant’s motion to suppress the search of Device A is premature since the product of the search isn’t yet known. Also, his motion to suppress the search of Device B is denied for lack of standing. It isn’t his. United … Continue reading
techdirt: Successful Evidence Suppression Motion Shows Cops Think Pretty Much Everything Is ‘Suspicious’
techdirt: Successful Evidence Suppression Motion Shows Cops Think Pretty Much Everything Is ‘Suspicious’ by Tim Cushing, about reasonable suspicion in traffic stops. Everything and anything is reasonable suspicion, so if everything is, everyone can be stopped and detained.
M.D.Fla.: Lack of clarity of motion to suppress leads to denial
“Defendant’s motion is not a model of clarity.” “As an overarching concern, Defendant has not met his burden to be ‘sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural’ in presenting a substantial claim as to either warrant.” “Defendant has not presented any … Continue reading
D.P.R.: “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool.”
Defendant’s motion to suppress searches of cell phones is denied because he doesn’t show any standing in the phones that were searched. “A motion to suppress is not a discovery tool. Without a basic factual premise, the Court cannot discern … Continue reading
CT: Action to quash SW before criminal case became moot when charge filed
The petitioner sought to quash search warrants when there was no criminal case. After the criminal cases were finally filed, this action was moot because the claim could be brought within the criminal cases. In re Police Case Nos.: Meriden … Continue reading
W.D.Pa.: A request to show hands requires RS
The facts not being in dispute, no hearing was required on defendant’s motion to suppress. A request to show hands required reasonable suspicion. United States v. Chambers, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148692 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2022). Defendant alluded to … Continue reading
D.Haw.: A frivolous motion to suppress can harm the cause
Not filing a frivolous motion to suppress isn’t ineffective assistance of counsel, and it could harm the cause more than help. United States v. Sesepasara, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147899 (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2022):
UT: IAC shown for not challenging dog alert
The initial dog alert here did not provide probable cause for search of defendant’s vehicle. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a Fourth Amendment challenge. “In summary, based on the record before us, a motion to suppress the … Continue reading
S.D.Cal.: 4A violations are for suppression, not dismissal
“Searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment do not require dismissing an indictment; instead, the remedy is suppressing the evidence at trial.” United States v. Ramirez-Aleman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77436 (S.D.Cal. Apr. 26, 2022). Defendant officers have … Continue reading
ID: If a motion to suppress is untimely, at least show good cause for the delay
The trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress as untimely without inquiring into possible good cause or excusable neglect for the delay where the defense offered nothing on that. Defendant stripping down and leaving his clothes … Continue reading
S.D.N.Y.: A reasonably conducted eviction is not a 4A violation
“Most eviction-type seizures do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Thomas v. Cohen, 304 F.3d 563, 574 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 71, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1992)). Seizing an … Continue reading
MA: Late disclosure of product of search wasn’t exculpatory so no prejudice
Defendant sought in discovery the call log from the search of his cell phone. The state didn’t provide it timely. It was not exculpatory in trial counsel’s view because it contradicted the defense witnesses and whatever defense they had for … Continue reading
N.D.Fla.: § 2241 habeas can’t be used to review another USDJ’s denial of a motion to suppress
A defendant can’t use a 2241 habeas as a way to appeal denial of a motion to suppress by another district judge. Butler v. Cook, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247876 (N.D.Fla. Nov. 30, 2021). Controlled buys from defendant a few … Continue reading
DE: Mere citation of a case in motion to suppress didn’t put state and court on notice as to other issues
Defendant’s citation of a case in his motion to suppress that was on point to only one issue but not the others was insufficient to put the state and court on notice as to the others. State v. Hollar, 2021 … Continue reading
N.D.Cal.: Rule 41(g) is for return of things, not suppression of evidence
Rule 41(g) is only for return of seized things, and it can’t be used to suppress evidence, especially in a state court. Christie v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231113 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 2, 2021). Defendant’s motion to suppress cites … Continue reading
CA6: No REP in truck driven without authority and probably stolen
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a truck that was, for all intents and purposes, stolen from a mentally ill woman who could not remember who it was loaned to or when. Moreover, he denied knowledge of the … Continue reading
CA1: Burden on “neutral and detached magistrate” is on defense, and here the showing was speculative
The search warrant issuing magistrate’s husband was a doctor and a potential victim of a DoS cyberattack at a children’s hospital in Boston, allegedly perpetrated for personal reasons. The claim the USMJ was not neutral and detached is speculative. “But … Continue reading
N.D.Ga.: No right to pre-execution litigation of an OSHA administrative SW
There is no right to a pre-enforcement motion to quash an OSHA administrative warrant, despite the fact the whole process occurs quickly. The company has a post-execution process to remedy alleged violations. United States v. Foundation Foods Group, 2021 U.S. … Continue reading
CA7: Untimely filed suppression motion is waived
The three defendants filed untimely motions to suppress under the scheduling order; two were in the days before the trial and the third was during the trial. They were fact intensive and would have required a hearing. “Even on appeal, … Continue reading