The drug dog was certified, and that’s enough for the state to make its burden at a suppression hearing under Florida v. Harris. Defendant was stopped for tint and an altered temporary tag, and a drug dog was used. State v. Brewer, 49 Kan. App. 2d 102, 305 P.3d 676 (2013).
This DUI roadblock was sufficiently obvious that it was constitutional. It was “well identified as a police checkpoint” as required by state law. There were ten officers in reflective vests and police cars with lights on. State v. Conner, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 577 (July 3, 2013).*
Defendant fled from the police discarding things from his pockets, and that’s abandonment (quoting Treatise). Walker v. State, 322 Ga. App. 821, 744 S.E.2d 385 (2013).*
Comments Off on KS: Drug dog was certified, and that’s enough for the state to make its burden at a suppression hearing under Harris
The officer did not “stop” defendant when he approached, and he found defendant apparently under the influence, a gun and pills in plain view. Then he put defendant in the police car. There was then probable cause there was controlled substances in the car, and the automobile exception permitted a warrantless search of a locked box in the backseat. State v. Reis, 2014 ND 30, 2014 N.D. LEXIS 23 (February 13, 2014):
The search warrant wasn’t stale because the affidavit set out that this was a multi-year drug trafficking organization. “The Court also factors the nature of the place to be searched into its staleness calculation. … Here, the place searched was defendants’ permanent residence, making it more likely that items would remain within the home over an extended period of time.” United States v. Arce-Lopez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18472 (D. P.R. February 11, 2014).*
Once a forfeiture of cash occurs, the owner can’t use a motion for return of seized property to get it back. Green v. State, 2014 Ark. 69, 2014 Ark. LEXIS 117 (February 13, 2014).*
Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle, and the gun and a ring were in plain view, visible from outside. United States v. Jarrett, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18005 (W.D. Pa. February 12, 2014).*
Comments Off on D.P.R.: Older info from multi-year DTO wasn’t stale
The search warrant was for counterfeiting, but the officers believed, but didn’t disclose to the USMJ, that the defendant was also involved in a bank robbery. The firearms in the bank robbery were found during the search, and they are not suppressed under the good faith exception. “The failure of the search-warrant application to reveal the possible connection of the firearms to the bank robberies did not render invalid the seizure of the firearms based on their possible relationship to Miller’s counterfeiting crimes. See United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1159 (5th Cir. 1981).” United States v. Kizer, 554 Fed. Appx. 311 (5th Cir. 2014).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CA5: Counterfeiting SW supported seizure of firearm used in bank robbery
The evidence supported the district court’s conclusion defendant consented to a body cavity search at the Eagle Pass checkpoint, despite her being intoxicated and incoherent. She was cooperative throughout. She claimed she had a tampon in, and pulled down her pants and showed the string to the officer, but the officer concluded it connected to something else. Defendant then conceded it was a condom with heroin. Defendant was known to Customs generally because of prior involvement with a body cavity smuggling ring. United States v. Martinez, 537 Fed. Appx. 340 (5th Cir. 2013).
Officers had probable cause based on a CI’s corroborated and detailed information that a van would show up for a meth deal. Defendant was a passenger and lacked standing. United States v. Verduzco-Morett, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102654 (W.D. Mo. January 17, 2013).*
Comments Off on CA5: Defendant consented to strip search at Customs despite being intoxicated and incoherent
In a grow operation search warrant, merely calling the informant “reliable” adds nothing other than the affiant’s opinion. There was nothing that corroborated the informant or showed his basis of knowledge. The motion to suppress was properly granted. Also, the choice of a “comparator” house for electrical usage was essentially misleading to the magistrate. United States v. Gifford, 727 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2013).
Defendant never alleges a possessory or privacy interest in the car that was searched, so he has no standing. United States v. Doe, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114766 (W.D. N.C. August 14, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114762 (W.D. N.C. June 21, 2013).*
The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant when he saw defendant’s hand move to his waist and saw what appeared to be the grip of a gun. United States v. Goss, 537 Fed. Appx. 276 (4th Cir. 2013).*
Comments Off on CA1: Failure to show CI’s basis of knowledge or corroborate anything was no PC
“[O]ur precedents are clear that § 1983 plaintiffs alleging arrest and prosecution absent probable cause may bring malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment, but are entitled to relief only if they are innocent of the crime for which they were prosecuted.” Since plaintiff wasn’t, he loses. Washington v. Hanshaw, 552 Fed. Appx. 169 (3d Cir. 2014).*
Summary judgment was properly granted the police in this state civil rights case. The search occurred by consent of the defendant’s wife who was a cotenant. Based on all they knew at the time of the search, only one conclusion was possible. Youker v. Douglas County, 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 9 (January 9, 2014).*
A disciplined police officer did not have a Fourth Amendment claim where a search warrant was used merely to recover a gun from his car that was in plain view but locked up. Quezada v. City of Los Angeles, 222 Cal. App. 4th 993, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 479 (2d Dist. 2014).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CA3: Innocent plaintiff can bring a 4A claim for malicious prosecution
Defendant’s cell phone was seized during his arrest for possession of ammunition and search with a search warrant. It was reasonable for the officer to believe that the cell phone’s contents might support that arrest. United States v. Hill, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17582 (N.D. Cal. February 10, 2014).* [I don’t get it either except for photos. People take photos of their crimes all the time. That is reasonable to believe on its face. My favorites came off the snitch’s phone the government shared.]
Officers came to defendant’s rural home to do a knock and talk about methamphetamine, and he met them on the porch with a rifle. They disarmed him and patted him down, feeling a round object in his pocket. Asked what it was he pulled it out, and it was clear plastic. Inside was what appeared to be methamphetamine, and he was asked what it was, and he said it was meth. The search and admission was lawful. King v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 81, 2014 Ark. App. LEXIS 145 (February 12, 2014).
Meritless search and seizure claim can’t support post-conviction petition. Boatright v. State, 2014 Ark. 66 (February 13, 2014).*
A warrantless probation search can include the probationer’s cell phone as his “property.” State v. Kelley, 2014-Ohio-464, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 455 (5th Dist. February 4, 2014). [Defense lawyers: Think of all your clients carrying their cell phones to PO meetings.]
Defendant was arrested on warrants and needed clothes to go to jail and consented to the officers coming into the house to observe. Plain view sustained. [Just like Washington v. Chrisman which isn’t cited.] State v. Dean, 2014-Ohio-448, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 447 (12th Dist. February 10, 2014).*
Comments Off on OH5: Warrantless probation search can include cell phones
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in prescription records, and the third party doctrine does not apply such that the information can be obtained by mere administrative subpoena. Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. United States DEA, 998 F. Supp. 2d 957 (D. Ore. 2014):
Posted inReasonable expectation of privacy|Comments Off on D.Or.: Reasonable expectation of privacy in prescription records, and the third party doctrine does not apply to them
Two NYPD officers had become notoriously unbelievable in various cases in this district. The government provided Giglio material on prior adverse rulings on credibility. After considering all the details of the case, the court finds the officers just aren’t credible and grants the motion to suppress. United States v. Price, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17155 (E.D. N.Y. February 11, 2014)*:
The court conducted a Franks hearing, but the defendant provided nothing that was false. Also, the surveillance of his house from the neighborhood was hardly an unreasonable search. United States v. Hernandez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17052 (W.D. Ky. February 11, 2014).*
The search warrant was not stale because the application stated that the CI’s information was obtained within the previous 24 hours. Peden v. State, 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 63 (February 11, 2014).*
The stop wasn’t complete when consent was asked for and obtained because the computer check hadn’t come back. Even if the stop was considered complete, there was reasonable suspicion defendant was involved with manufacturing methamphetamine. State v. Reed, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 125 (February 11, 2014).*
Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Physical surveillance of a house isn’t unreasonable
Police got an anonymous 911 call that a group of 25 men were standing around brandishing firearms. When they got there, it was a much smaller group and there were no firearms visible. For some reason, defendant was singled out for a frisk, and he resisted. The frisk was without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Defendant was ostensibly doing nothing wrong. The anonymous call about a gun has a lower bar to cross, but here there was nothing as to defendant. United State v. Williams, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19557 (7th Cir. September 24, 2013).*
“Here, the officers executing the search had been informed by a co-tenant that the apartment was being used as a drug mill, and the officers knew Almonte was aware that a search was imminent. Accordingly, the District Court’s conclusion that an exigency existed, based on the officers’ belief that evidence was being destroyed, was not clearly erroneous.” United States v. Almonte, 537 Fed. Appx. 64 (3d Cir. 2013).*
Comments Off on CA7: Frisk without RS defendant was armed should have been suppressed
Defendant was arrested alone in a car, so it was going to be towed, and that means an inventory would be conducted. Hidden in an open container was false identity documents, and he’s charged with aggravated identity theft. He doesn’t even get an evidentiary hearing because the papers are sufficient. The parties filed the reports and the inventory policy. United States v. Exume, 953 F. Supp. 2d 319 (D. Mass. 2013).*
Defendant was arrested and subjected to a search of his car (with probable cause). The search of the car was treated as a pre-Gant search incident and upheld under Davis good faith. [It appears it would have been good under the automobile exception which isn’t discussed.] United States v. Casteel, 717 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 2013).
Pre-Gant search incident saved by good faith exception. State v. Carlton, 297 Kan. 642, 304 P.3d 323 (2013).
Defendant was validly stopped and his cash seized. There is no question, however, that the officer didn’t Mirandize him and was trying to elicit incriminating responses. The statements are suppressed. United States v. Hernandez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86319 (D. Neb. June 18, 2013).*
Defendant was subjected to a valid probation search days after going on probation, and a gun was found. State v. Fields, 120 So. 3d 309 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2013).*
Comments Off on CA8 & KS apply Davis to pre-Gant search incident
Iowa law requires that only “state agents” can apply for and install GPS devices, and this wasn’t followed. This case, however, is in federal court, and the Fourth Amendment wasn’t violated. United States v. Hansen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87951 (N.D. Iowa June 19, 2013).
Defendant was subjected to a search incident in 2007 that was valid under Belton, but he preserved the argument it wasn’t. Gant was decided in 2009, and the court of appeals decided his case in July 2010. Three years later, on review, the Kansas Supreme Court holds that the Davis good faith exception saves the search for the state. (The case dragged on so long, the defendant died before it was decided.) State v. Karson, 297 Kan. 634, 304 P.3d 317 (2013).*
Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Fact state law on GPS installation wasn’t followed not a Fourth Amendment violation
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." —Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." —Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." —United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." —Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." —Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." —Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.” —United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
