Category Archives: Seizure

MA: The fact co-conspirators coordinated in planning the crime was nexus to def’s cell phone

The state showed a nexus to defendant’s cell phone and the crime under investigation because the participants were coordinating with each other before hand. “We have no evidence that the purpose of the cell phone call between the defendant, when … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Seizure | Comments Off on MA: The fact co-conspirators coordinated in planning the crime was nexus to def’s cell phone

DC: Telling def to put his hands on the wall for a patdown was a seizure and wasn’t consensual

Telling defendant to put his hands against the wall and assume the position for a patdown was a seizure, and here it was without probable cause. It was not consensual. Dozier v. United States, 2019 D.C. App. LEXIS 495 (Dec. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Seizure, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on DC: Telling def to put his hands on the wall for a patdown was a seizure and wasn’t consensual

N.D.Iowa: “[T]he mere fact that the agents requested that Defendant sign a consent form does not suggest that he was in custody” for Miranda

“[T]he mere fact that the agents requested that Defendant sign a consent form does not suggest that he was in custody” for Miranda purposes. United States v. Cox, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206681 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2019), adopted, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: “[T]he mere fact that the agents requested that Defendant sign a consent form does not suggest that he was in custody” for Miranda

W.D.N.C.: Guilty plea waived 4A IAC claim

“The knowing and voluntary guilty plea waived all alleged ineffective assistance of counsel which preceded it, including counsel’s alleged deficiencies with regards to Fourth Amendment issues.” Allen v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205762 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 26, 2019). … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Guilty plea waived 4A IAC claim

KS: Officer’s reinitating contact during stop and leaning into window with hands on door meant to driver he wasn’t free to leave

Officer’s reinitiating contact with driver, leaning on window and asking about asking more questions on the totality signaled to defendant he wasn’t free to leave. State v. Gonzalez, 2019 Kan. App. LEXIS 85 (Nov. 27, 2019):

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off on KS: Officer’s reinitating contact during stop and leaning into window with hands on door meant to driver he wasn’t free to leave

MI: Seizing def’s home without reason to believe a wanted person was inside violated 4A

“The police officers violated the defendant’s constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure when they exceeded the proper scope of a knock and talk by approaching and securing the defendant’s home without sufficient reason to believe … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Seizure, Social media warrants | Comments Off on MI: Seizing def’s home without reason to believe a wanted person was inside violated 4A

N.D.Miss.: Uncontradicted testimony that a DL checkpoint was validly set up makes checkpoint valid; plain view sustained

The state set up a driver’s license and safety checkpoint, and defendant was stopped there. He doesn’t contradict the officer’s testimony that it was set up by supervisory persons and was limited in time and scope. The stop was thus … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: Uncontradicted testimony that a DL checkpoint was validly set up makes checkpoint valid; plain view sustained

S.D.Ohio: Putting def in the back seat of a police car wasn’t unreasonable during a basic traffic stop

“Ward also argues that the traffic stop was extended by placing him in the back of the police cruiser. … However, the officer(s) needed to walk back to the police cruiser in order to complete the mission of issuing a … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Putting def in the back seat of a police car wasn’t unreasonable during a basic traffic stop

N.D.Ind.: The encounter started as consensual because the officer approached from the side to a parked car; RS developed

The encounter with the officer was not a seizure. She was parked five spaces away from defendant’s car and off to the side. When talking to defendant she saw a meth pipe in plain view. “The parties do not dispute … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: The encounter started as consensual because the officer approached from the side to a parked car; RS developed

D.Mont.: Being ordered from your vehicle doesn’t require a Miranda warning

Being ordered from your vehicle doesn’t require a Miranda warning. Mimms, of course, permits the occupants to be ordered out. Over time, this ripened to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Lugo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200612 (D. Mont. Nov. 19, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Being ordered from your vehicle doesn’t require a Miranda warning

MD: MTA “fare sweep” resulted in def’s detention without RS

A “fare sweep” on an MTA train in Baltimore led to defendant being detained. Officers ran his name and found a record. At a station, a scuffle ensued, one of the officers shouted “gun” and defendant was wrestled to the … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site simulators, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on MD: MTA “fare sweep” resulted in def’s detention without RS

WA: A purse and a closed pouch within are subject to search incident

Defendant was subject to a valid search incident, and that included not only her purse, but also a pouch within her purse. State v. Richards, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2772 (Oct. 29, 2019). Officers saw defendant and others and ordered … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Search incident, Seizure | Comments Off on WA: A purse and a closed pouch within are subject to search incident