Monthly Archives: April 2026

CA3: In seeking arrest warrants, officers need not present all exculpatory evidence to issuing magistrate unless it’s “conclusive”

Being tried and acquitted of murder, plaintiff sued the police who arrested her. She had an affirmative defense which led to the acquittal. Failure to present conclusive evidence of an affirmative defense to the issuing magistrate would be a probable … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Neutral and detached magistrate, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA3: In seeking arrest warrants, officers need not present all exculpatory evidence to issuing magistrate unless it’s “conclusive”

D.Idaho: Trial references to SW not barred, but govt limited in what it can say

Defendant’s motion to preclude the government from referring to being in his house on a search warrant is granted in part and denied in part under F.R.E. 403. The government cannot suggest that issuance of a warrant means any judicial … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Trial references to SW not barred, but govt limited in what it can say

D.D.C.: PO’s alleged violation of probation regulations doesn’t warrant suppression if a reasonable mistake

Even if GPS monitoring by a Community Supervision Officer under D.C. law violated regulations, a reasonable mistake of law (Heien) overcomes the violation, and it is not suppressed. United States v. White, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92214 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Staleness | Comments Off on D.D.C.: PO’s alleged violation of probation regulations doesn’t warrant suppression if a reasonable mistake

E.D.N.C.: SW not required to look in def’s jail property bag and retrieve car keys

Inserting a key in a lock to see if it worked wasn’t a search. The key was in his jail property and lawfully taken from there. A warrant wasn’t required to get into his property bag. United States v. Miller, … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: SW not required to look in def’s jail property bag and retrieve car keys

D.N.M.: Consent attenuated unreasonable search

Opening a box in defendant’s car was an unreasonable search, and it likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Defendant was later Mirandized and consented. After a thorough discussion of the caselaw, the court finds that the constitutional violation was slight [what … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Consent | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Consent attenuated unreasonable search

CA9: Boat tied to a dock is a vehicle for automobile exception even if someone lives on it

A boat tied to a dock is subject to the vehicle exception even if somebody lives on it. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11866 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2026). Officers don’t have to piecemeal the exigency for … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA9: Boat tied to a dock is a vehicle for automobile exception even if someone lives on it

E.D.Okla.: Plain view of firearms under protective sweep sustained under Buie’s first prong

The plain view of firearms occurred under Buie’s first scenario, but not the second because it involved a search for a person and continued thereafter. Still, it’s sustained. United States v. McCary, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91328 (E.D. Okla. Apr. … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Plain view of firearms under protective sweep sustained under Buie’s first prong

E.D.Va.: Search incident could be done on FTA arrest

Defendant was arrested on a state Capias for FTA issued in open court. The search incident to the arrest was valid. United States v. Barnhart, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91284 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2026). Defendant’s conviction is affirmed. There … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Overbreadth, Search incident | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Search incident could be done on FTA arrest

SCOTUS: Geofence warrant oral argument Monday

Chatrie v. United States, 25-112 (cert. granted Jan. 16, 2026; argument April 27, 2026) (ScotusBlog). Question presented: Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. It can be heard live at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2025 10 am EDT. Update: Reason: … Continue reading

Posted in geofence, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUS: Geofence warrant oral argument Monday

S.D.Ohio: DEA agents tailing a car can request marked unit to make a traffic stop for violations they saw

DEA agents following defendant in an unmarked car observed traffic violations, and they requested a marked unit to make a stop, which was valid. United States v. Peterson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90905 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2026).* A state … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: DEA agents tailing a car can request marked unit to make a traffic stop for violations they saw

M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

“To the contrary, this testimony confirms only that Agent Evans’s forensic examination was circumscribed by the legal boundaries of the search warrant. Cox’s attempt to equate the examiner’s adherence to those boundaries with a failure to uncover exculpatory evidence is … Continue reading

Posted in Due process, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Officer’s adhering to particularity wasn’t a failure to uncover Brady information

W.D.Tenn.: Facebook SW for evidence of gang activity was particular enough, considering context

This Facebook warrant for information about gang activity was based on probable cause and was particular enough, considering the context of what the government was looking for. In any event, it wasn’t so bad that the good faith exception didn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Particularity, Social media warrants | Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Facebook SW for evidence of gang activity was particular enough, considering context

CA10: Tribal and state court SWs: state judge wanted more information, but that didn’t make tribal warrant lack PC

Defendant lived on tribal lands with a co-occupant who was not Native American. Officers obtained two search warrants: one from a tribal court and one from a state court. The applications were identical. The state judge, however, wanted more information, … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA10: Tribal and state court SWs: state judge wanted more information, but that didn’t make tribal warrant lack PC

OR: Voluntary consent to a blood draw after accident and pain meds in hospital

Defendant voluntarily consented to a blood draw for DUII at the hospital despite having been in an accident and received pain medication. State v. Miller, 375 Or. 173 (Apr. 23, 2026). There was probable cause to put a tracking device … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on OR: Voluntary consent to a blood draw after accident and pain meds in hospital

W.D.Wash.: SDT to Seattle Children’s Hospital was pretextual

On the government’s motion to alter or amend judgment, these health care fraud subpoenas to Seattle Children’s Hospital seek too much private patient information and are also found to be pretextual. In re Subpoena Duces Tecum No. 25-1431-016, 2026 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Pretext, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: SDT to Seattle Children’s Hospital was pretextual

N.D.Ga.: A filter team not required to examine seized photographs

A filter team wasn’t required to examine seized photographs. Overseizure doesn’t make a search unreasonable unless it was flagrant, and this wasn’t. United States v. Alford, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87350 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2026). “Even if the pre-warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Overseizure, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: A filter team not required to examine seized photographs

CA5: Officer’s touching parent’s arm to get her through a school door for four seconds was de minimis

In a school grounds dispute, a parent’s arm was grabbed for four seconds to move her through a doorway. “Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was ‘clearly’ excessive and unreasonable. … Dupuy knew that the … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Seizure | Comments Off on CA5: Officer’s touching parent’s arm to get her through a school door for four seconds was de minimis

N.D.Ohio: Where 1 of 10 officers in a search wore a bodycam, that doesn’t mean the others couldn’t be credible

“Harris also questions the ‘credibility’ of the officers executing the search warrant because only 1 out of 10 officers … wore a body camera at any point during the search. But other than generalized complaints about the lack of body … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Ineffective assistance, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Where 1 of 10 officers in a search wore a bodycam, that doesn’t mean the others couldn’t be credible

CA9: Illegal arrest doesn’t justify dismissal of indictment

An illegal arrest doesn’t justify dismissing an indictment. He also did not show outrageous governmental conduct. United States v. Colfax, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11426 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2026). The officer knew Dodge pickup trucks, and the registration on … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Immigration arrests, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA9: Illegal arrest doesn’t justify dismissal of indictment

DE: Doesn’t violate 4A to have bodycam on during SW execution

It doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to execute a search warrant with a bodycam on. Defendant cites no authority, either. State v. Williams, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 183 (Apr. 22, 2026):

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on DE: Doesn’t violate 4A to have bodycam on during SW execution