Monthly Archives: January 2025

M.D.Tenn.: Five-month-old information about CP on a Pinterest account not stale

There was probable cause for this child pornography warrant. Information about a Pinterest account that was five months old was not stale, and the images were adequately identified. United States v. Lynch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2633 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Ineffective assistance, Staleness | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: Five-month-old information about CP on a Pinterest account not stale

S.D.Ala.: Failure to timely make SW return under state law not a 4A issue

The fact the search warrant paperwork wasn’t returned on time which made it void under state law isn’t relevant under the Fourth Amendment in federal court. Jackson v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235912 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 4, 2024), … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Reasonableness, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant papers | Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: Failure to timely make SW return under state law not a 4A issue

E.D.Mo.: No claim where no damages shown for alleged unreasonable dog sniff; nothing was found, detention was otherwise reasonable

Officers were surveilling a van that they believed might have a connection to an unsolved homicide. They observed what appeared to be hand-to-hand drug transactions, and the van’s LPN was expired. They approached. There were others around the van, and … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Dog sniff, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: No claim where no damages shown for alleged unreasonable dog sniff; nothing was found, detention was otherwise reasonable

WI: Not coercive to tell def officer will get SW if he doesn’t consent when there is PC

It’s not coercive to tell a suspect that the officer will get a search warrant if he doesn’t consent when there’s probable cause. State v. Gore, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 7 (Jan. 7, 2025). There was probable cause for defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on WI: Not coercive to tell def officer will get SW if he doesn’t consent when there is PC

CA4: Ditching backpack when hiding from police was abandonment

Defendant abandoned his backpack when he ditched it in a motel stairwell when he was fleeing the police. United States v. Mayberry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 300 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025). Leaving one’s backpack and a trashbag in the … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA4: Ditching backpack when hiding from police was abandonment

CA10: Parole supervisor could conduct parole search

The fact a parole supervisor conducted the parole search and not a “parole officer” doesn’t make the parole search unreasonable. United States v. Barron, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 258 (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025). Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is more … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA10: Parole supervisor could conduct parole search

D.P.R.: Being in technical violation of a lease doesn’t deprive defendant of standing

“Following the logic of these cases, the fact that Defendant was apparently in technical violation of an apartment lease does not deprive him of standing to challenge the search in question. The evidence on the record indicates that Defendant was … Continue reading

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Being in technical violation of a lease doesn’t deprive defendant of standing

W.D.Pa.: Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated REP

Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated a reasonable expectation of privacy and likely Title III. Baker v. City of Pittsburgh, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2157 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025). The search of … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Body cameras, Consent, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated REP

Wired: License Plate Readers Are Leaking Real-Time Video Feeds and Vehicle Data

Wired: License Plate Readers Are Leaking Real-Time Video Feeds and Vehicle Data (“This trove of real-time vehicle data, collected by one of Motorola’s [automated license-plate-recognition] systems, is meant to be accessible by law enforcement. However, a flaw discovered by a … Continue reading

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Wired: License Plate Readers Are Leaking Real-Time Video Feeds and Vehicle Data

E.D.La.: ALPR tracking of def’s vehicle to connect to a robbery wasn’t 4A violation

Defendant’s argument ALPR tracking of her vehicle connecting it and her to a Hobbs Act bar robbery in New Orleans is akin to CSLI is rejected. There aren’t that many cameras in the city, and the information produced was really … Continue reading

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on E.D.La.: ALPR tracking of def’s vehicle to connect to a robbery wasn’t 4A violation

N.D.Cal.: Violation of CalECPA has nothing to do with federal rights

Violation of CalECPA has nothing to do with federal rights. United States v. Wenger, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1331 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2025). At the time of the warrant, it was not established that the accused had to have … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Violation of CalECPA has nothing to do with federal rights

TN: Def’s yelling “police” and turning back from door justified immediate entry on fear of destruction of evidence

When police knocked at defendant’s door, he yelled “police” and turned back inside the house, they feared to warn others or destroy evidence. “Here, based upon the totality of the circumstances, the record shows that the officer had a reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TN: Def’s yelling “police” and turning back from door justified immediate entry on fear of destruction of evidence

W.D.Wash.: Hypothetical 4A violation from civil investigative demand doesn’t confer Art. III standing

Hypothetical future Fourth Amendment injury from a state AG’s civil investigative demand doesn’t confer Art. III standing. Obria Grp., Inc. v. Ferguson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1166 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2025). “Here, a common-sense review of the warrant affidavit … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Standing, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: Hypothetical 4A violation from civil investigative demand doesn’t confer Art. III standing

ME: Standing is a threshold issue, and court could examine it despite the state’s stipulation

Despite the state stipulating to standing, it’s a threshold issue and the court finds no standing here. Defendant was a passenger in a car and kept some stuff in it, but he still lacked standing to contest this search. State … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Standing | Comments Off on ME: Standing is a threshold issue, and court could examine it despite the state’s stipulation

Tech Policy Press, California’s Surveillance Systems Have Once Again Become a Major Liability

Tech Policy Press, California’s Surveillance Systems Have Once Again Become a Major Liability by Nicole A. Ozer & Matt Cagle (“In recent decades, surveillance has increased exponentially across California. Politicians and business leaders promised that the proliferation of cameras, automated … Continue reading

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Drones, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Tech Policy Press, California’s Surveillance Systems Have Once Again Become a Major Liability

S.D.Ga.: USMJ recommends suppression of search after dog alert because dog prompted and window entered

USMJ recommends motion to suppress car search based on a dog alert should be granted because the handler prompted the dog and both the handler and dog entered the window and then the car before the dog alert. As to … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: USMJ recommends suppression of search after dog alert because dog prompted and window entered

S.D.N.Y.: Home confinement for pretrial release is not a 4A seizure

“In sum, defendant is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent under home confinement as a condition of his bail release. Further, defendant’s time spent on home confinement did not constitute a seizure of his person under … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Ineffective assistance, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Home confinement for pretrial release is not a 4A seizure

W.D.Va.: No REP prison visit with nonlawyer wouldn’t be videorecorded on bodycam

Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison visit with his brother being recorded on body camera of a nearby correctional officer. Saunders v. Vilbrandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 989 (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2025).* “To the extent … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Issue preclusion, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Video surveillance | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: No REP prison visit with nonlawyer wouldn’t be videorecorded on bodycam

LA Times: Is your car spying on you? What it means that Tesla shared data in the Las Vegas explosion

LA Times: Is your car spying on you? What it means that Tesla shared data in the Las Vegas explosion by Bernard Condon (“Your car is spying on you. [¶] That is one takeaway from the fast, detailed data that … Continue reading

Posted in Surveillance technology, Video surveillance | Comments Off on LA Times: Is your car spying on you? What it means that Tesla shared data in the Las Vegas explosion

N.D.Ind.: Criminal complaint can’t be challenged under Franks after indictment

A criminal complaint can’t be challenged under Franks after indictment. United States v. Sole, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 908 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2025).* Defendant’s stop for clearly overtinted windows was reasonable. Disagreement by witnesses over minor details didn’t matter. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Criminal complaint can’t be challenged under Franks after indictment