Daily Archives: January 7, 2026

CA9: In school seizure of plaintiff’s cell phone for 30 minutes was not unreasonable

In school seizure of plaintiff’s cell phone for 30 minutes was not unreasonable and “not excessively intrusive.” McGuire v. Roseville Joint Union High Sch. Dist., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 172 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026). “Valdivia counters that [the officer’s] … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, School searches | Comments Off on CA9: In school seizure of plaintiff’s cell phone for 30 minutes was not unreasonable

CA10: A search incident to arrest isn’t valid when there’s no arrest

A search incident to arrest isn’t valid when there’s no arrest. The law is clearly established, so no qualified immunity. Montgomery v. Cruz, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 161 (10th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026). The defense succeeded in a Franks challenge … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Search incident | Comments Off on CA10: A search incident to arrest isn’t valid when there’s no arrest

S.D.Cal.: Notebook of passwords was within the scope of a CSAM warrant

During a child pornography warranted search, officers found a notebook of passwords, and it was within the scope of the warrant. United States v. Lira-Prado, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 982 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026). One child pornography warrant led … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Overbreadth, Scope of search | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Notebook of passwords was within the scope of a CSAM warrant

E.D.Mich.: Defense can’t use SCA to get emails, even if they’re exculpatory

Only a governmental entity gets to use the Stored Communications Act to get emails. The defense can’t do it seeking even alleged exculpatory emails. Perry v. Silverthon, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 828 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2026). “Single-incident liability ‘is … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Overbreadth, Particularity, Stored Communications Act | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Defense can’t use SCA to get emails, even if they’re exculpatory

Sixth edition arrived today

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Sixth edition arrived today

S.D.N.Y.: Investigative medical exams implicate 4A

“The Fourth Amendment is implicated when medical examinations are undertaken at the initiative of a state official for an investigatory purpose. See Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 606 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to ‘searches … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Search | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Investigative medical exams implicate 4A

OH5: Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity

Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity. State v. Starcher, 2026-Ohio-15, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 11 (5th Dist. Jan. 6, 2026). In a civil case, the reference to Fourth Amendment was a typo for Fourteenth. It will be considered … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OH5: Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity

D.N.J.: Someone doesn’t have to be home to execute a SW

It isn’t a proper Fourth Amendment challenge for a warrant not to be executed because no one is home. Rodriguez-Ferreira v. Sweeney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 560 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2026). Defense counsel objected to the search warrant twice on … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Someone doesn’t have to be home to execute a SW