March 2021 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
- NE requires suppression issue be renewed when evidence admitted at trial
- SD: Local officers called tribal officers and respected tribal authority before arresting def
- OH1: Order to get out of car doesn’t unreasonably extend a traffic stop
- D.Minn.: IAC Franks proffer rejected as lacking sworn affidavits or any credibility at all
- E.D.N.Y.: Def gets access to SW materials, but govt can redact informant’s info
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. about 30,000 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
Category Archives: Motion to suppress
It was a reasonable inference that the owner of a vehicle with a suspended license was driving when the vehicle was seen because the officer’s experience [and commonsense by now] shows that persons with suspended licenses continue to drive. That … Continue reading
KY: Deputy in one county could go to another to investigate; no motion to suppress lies for statutory violation, if there even was one
A motion to suppress for a statutory violation doesn’t work in Kentucky absent a constitutional violation to found it on. Here, a deputy from one county crossed into another county to investigate. The statute defendant relies on deals with arrest, … Continue reading
D.Kan.: Pro se motion to suppress of represented def doesn’t attach affidavits, say why 4A or statute violated, or cite any law; denied for having counsel
Defendant is represented by counsel, then files a motion to suppress. “Defendant’s pro se motion reflects a misunderstanding of court proceedings. The Defendant fails to specify which search warrant he objects to, fails to provide a copy, or copies, of … Continue reading
A generalized motion to suppress merely seeking “four corners review” of probable cause is insufficient. “Defendant’s failure to specify the basis for his suppression motion and provide any argument in support thereof warrants denial alone.” “Defendant’s motion also fails because … Continue reading
A city code enforcement officer who came to plaintiff’s door for a couple of minutes to attempt to talk to him about a sign code violation did not violate the curtilage. Clark v. City of Williamsburg, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading
TX3: No “sua sponte duty” in trial court to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress
The trial court has no “sua sponte duty” to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress. Chila v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10219 (Tex. App. – Austin Dec. 23, 2020). Police along with USMs entered defendant’s place … Continue reading
Defense counsel waited past the pretrial motions deadline to file a motion to suppress complaining that he needed a state court transcript, but that hearing was long ago. The district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for … Continue reading
Not a search claim: Admission of jail telephone calls didn’t undermine the presumption of innocence. Defendant wouldn’t stipulate to authenticity so the government had to establish the source of the calls. United States v. Arayatanon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 35922 … Continue reading
Tight handcuffing can be excessive force. Here, plaintiff complained, and they were loosened. He had only a slight bruise. That’s normal, and summary judgment was properly granted against that claim. Reyes v. City of Santa Ana, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading
As to one challenged search of Google, when the government says it won’t use challenged evidence at trial, the motion to suppress becomes moot. A motion to suppress another search warrant to Google led to reissuance of a search warrant … Continue reading
CA5: Failure to plead facts in motion to suppress that would justify relief doesn’t require a hearing
The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress without a hearing for failure to plead “facts that would justify relief.” United States v. Smith, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 32024 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2020):
D.Idaho: Even if smell of MJ only justifies search of passenger compartment, finding nothing extends it to trunk
Defendant argues that the smell of marijuana during a traffic stop only permitted a search of the passenger compartment of his vehicle. When the officer didn’t find any marijuana there, it was justified to search the trunk. United States v. … Continue reading
Movant has notice of a search warrant not yet executed. Her ex ante motion to quash the search warrant is denied without prejudice. Under Rule 41(h), the motion should be filed after the search occurs. United States v. Richards, 2020 … Continue reading
TN: No right to reconsideration of denial of motion to suppress on transfer to a different trial judge after denial
After the case was transferred to a different judge after denial of a motion to suppress, defendant sought reconsideration of denial of his suppression motion. He didn’t show that there was justification for reconsideration because of new evidence or other … Continue reading
“The district court did not err by denying Turner’s motion to suppress. Delgado was entitled, ‘without any level of suspicion,’ to approach a car in a dangerous locale with an unknown number of occupants parked near a residence where he … Continue reading
When the defense makes a motion to suppress, it is obligated to put the state on notice as to all the issues. This suppression hearing took nine days, and still the defense claims the state didn’t fully get the issues. … Continue reading