Category Archives: Standards of review

TX: If electronic search was illegal, it was harmless

The court of appeals applied the wrong standard for harm analysis from an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. The alleged illegal search of his electronics didn’t have that much to do with the fact defendant was convicted of smothering his child. … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Standards of review | Comments Off on TX: If electronic search was illegal, it was harmless

NM: Trial court’s finding of consent is reversed because the court engaged in its own internet investigation beyond what the parties provided

The suppression order for defendant on coerced consent is reversed. The trial court engaged in its own research into facts to make the decision on acquiring the affidavit for a later warrant, the distance between things, and the temperature at … Continue reading →

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Probation / Parole search, Standards of review | Comments Off on NM: Trial court’s finding of consent is reversed because the court engaged in its own internet investigation beyond what the parties provided

TX14: Affidavit for SW gets deferential standard of review by both the trial court and appellate court

The affidavit for search warrant gets a deferential standard of review by both the trial court and appellate court. Gaither v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 4588 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) May 19, 2026). “The federal district court … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Nexus, Pole cameras, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on TX14: Affidavit for SW gets deferential standard of review by both the trial court and appellate court

CA6: Entrapment is not a defense to a search warrant

Entrapment is not a defense to a search warrant, so CoA denied. Neeley v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29144 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025). The motion to suppress for lack of jurisdiction to serve warrants is denied. It’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA6: Entrapment is not a defense to a search warrant

S.D.Ill.: Search of room adjoining arrest wasn’t valid as SI or protective sweep

Defendant had standing as an occasional overnight guest in his ex-girlfriend’s apartment when he was there when the police arrived to arrest him. The search of another room was neither valid as a search incident or protective sweep. Motion to … Continue reading →

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Probable cause, Protective sweep, Search incident, Standards of review | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Search of room adjoining arrest wasn’t valid as SI or protective sweep

CA5: Officer’s resting hand on truck while talking to def wasn’t a seizure

The officer resting his hand on defendant’s truck while talking to him during a stop was not a separate seizure of him. United States v. Larremore, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20757 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025). The closest case plaintiff … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Qualified immunity, Seizure, Standards of review, Trespass | Comments Off on CA5: Officer’s resting hand on truck while talking to def wasn’t a seizure

N.D.Ga.: No REP in a prison inmate’s cell phone

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a cell phone in prison. United States v. Brandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025). This line in defendant’s PSR leads to denial of his … Continue reading →

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No REP in a prison inmate’s cell phone

W.D.Okla.: Prison cell search not following policy not a 4A violation

Guard not following prison policy by conducting a cell search alone doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Freeman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112882 (W.D. Okla. June 13, 2025). Plaintiff EMT’s drug test for an accident in his ambulance … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Prison and jail searches, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Prison cell search not following policy not a 4A violation

D.Nev.: There’s no 4A claim from officers running the serial number of a gun found in plain view

There is no Fourth Amendment claim for officers running the serial number of a gun after it was lawfully encountered, so no ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Hylton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71338 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2025). … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review, Strip search | Comments Off on D.Nev.: There’s no 4A claim from officers running the serial number of a gun found in plain view

CA11: When there are multiple grounds supporting a search, appellant has to respond to all

An appellate court can affirm denial of suppression on any ground supported by the record. And, when the district court finds multiple independent grounds to deny suppression, the appellant has to rebut all of them. Here, the district court found … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA11: When there are multiple grounds supporting a search, appellant has to respond to all

D.Alaska: Recklessly omitted text messages were material to PC finding; suppression granted

Omitted text messages were material to the probable cause finding, and the officer was at least reckless in not including them. Franks satisfied: “Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Scoble’s reasoning, adopts his analysis, and finds that, had Detective Ruble … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Recklessly omitted text messages were material to PC finding; suppression granted

CA3: Apartment visitor to conduct drug deal has no standing

An apartment visitor to conduct a drug deal has no standing to contest a search that happened while he was there. United States v. Loyal, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5853 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2025). By collective knowledge, there was … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Pretext, Standards of review, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: Apartment visitor to conduct drug deal has no standing

CA6: Facebook picture of stolen lamp gave nexus for SW

An attempt to sell an antique lamp on Facebook provided sufficient nexus to defendant’s house for a search warrant. United States v. Truett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4764 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025).* The district court saw the video of … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Nexus, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA6: Facebook picture of stolen lamp gave nexus for SW

W.D.N.Y.: CA2’s deciding search issue in direct appeal with GFE, too, did not violate “party presentation” rule

The Second Circuit upheld the search in this case and threw in an alternative ground, the good faith exception. On habeas, that did not violate the “party presentation” rule where the parties decide the issues to litigate, not the court. … Continue reading →

Posted in Standards of review, Uncategorized | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: CA2’s deciding search issue in direct appeal with GFE, too, did not violate “party presentation” rule

D.Md.: Review of PC isn’t as skeptical as def requests

“Here, the affidavit easily meets the standard of probable cause. Defendants would require a level of skepticism that is not appropriate to the oversight at this juncture. The scheme to defraud was amply established by the affiant and so was … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Md.: Review of PC isn’t as skeptical as def requests

OH1: Inadvertence for plain view is a fact question

The inadvertence requirement of plain view here was a fact question. Police showed up on a wellness check about an allegedly suicidal person. Here it was a syringe cap that led to finding the syringe. State v. Hyatt, 2024-Ohio-2422 (1st … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Burden of proof, Dog sniff, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH1: Inadvertence for plain view is a fact question

D.N.M.: DEA’s failure to make a detailed inventory in violation of policy doesn’t require exclusion of evidence

The DEA’s failure to make a detailed inventory is not grounds to suppress the inventory, citing cases from other circuits. United States v. Veale, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88011 (D.N.M. May 15, 2024). Sometimes clients are their own worst enemy … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.N.M.: DEA’s failure to make a detailed inventory in violation of policy doesn’t require exclusion of evidence

IA: Court ordered privilege review of search was at its expense

When the court orders privilege review for the results of a search, it’s a court expense. State v. Iowa District Court for Emmet County, 2024 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 52 (May 10, 2024). “Lenhart does not assert fraud on the court, … Continue reading →

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standards of review | Comments Off on IA: Court ordered privilege review of search was at its expense

D.Kan.: Preservation request under SCA isn’t a search or seizure

A preservation request under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) for defendant’s Snapchat account isn’t an unreasonable search or seizure. Even if, “suppression would not be warranted because the FBI acted in good faith reliance on the Stored Communications Act. As a … Continue reading →

Posted in Private search, Social media warrants, Standards of review, Voluntariness | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Preservation request under SCA isn’t a search or seizure

E.D.Wis.: SW for cell phones allowed seizure of others found on premises

In this cell phone search warrant case, the government could seize multiple cell phones found at defendant’s house, old phones and others not named when they were found. Old phones and other phones could also have evidence on them. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: SW for cell phones allowed seizure of others found on premises