The officer approached defendant in a trailer park, somebody he’d run off from parking outside businesses all over town for suspected prostitution. In her car he saw drug paraphernalia in plain view, and that supported her arrest and search of the car under the automobile exception. The state’s concession of error is rejected. Coley v. State, 215 Md. App. 570, 81 A.3d 650 (2013).*
Officer had [really thin] reasonable suspicion, but reasonable suspicion nonetheless. The wait for the drug dog thus was not unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Bucalo, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 633 (December 19, 2013).*
DHS officers doing a “ramp check” at an airport were investigating a Cessna that landed to refuel. They asked for the pilot and found him in the pilot’s lounge. They talked to him, and got consent for him to verify that he owned the luggage on the airplane. Then he consented to a search of the luggage. United States v. Golden, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177839 (E.D. Cal. December 18, 2013).*
Comments Off on MD: Drug paraphernalia in plain view when officer walked up to car supported search
A police dog was tracking a burglary suspect when they stumbled upon marijuana in a storage building. It was effectively plain view, and the police did not violate Jardines. United States v. Jordan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184689 (W.D. N.C. December 27, 2013), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13767 (E.D.N.C., Feb. 4, 2014).
Defendant voluntarily consented. He was induced, but it wasn’t unreasonable inducement. United States v. Dietrich, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13620 (D.Neb. January 30, 2014).*
Private security guards running a checkpoint at an apartment building (even one getting some public funds) were not state actors when they stopped defendant and held the car for the police to arrive. United States v. Brooks, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13732 (M.D. Tenn. January 22, 2014).*
Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Police dog tracking suspect didn’t violate Jardines when stumbling upon MJ in a storage building
Officers responded to a break-in report at defendant’s house reported by a neighbor. They could see people inside, and the neighbor reported a shot fired. Defendant arrived, and the police said they were going in whether he consented or not. He at first denied living there. Inside they did a protective sweep for possible shooters and victims, and they saw a gun in plain view and a diaper box full of baggies of marijuana. The protective sweep took 20-25 minutes, and the court rejects the argument that it was too intense or too long. United States v. Goodrich, 739 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2014).*
The search warrants were issued on probable cause. The three hour delay between defendant’s arrest and the issuance of the search warrant for his property is not an issue. He cites no authority that this makes it unlawful. United States v. Bigbee, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 694 (M.D. Tenn. January 3, 2014).*
CI was corroborated by two controlled buys. United States v. Cunningham, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2988 (N.D. Ohio January 10, 2014).* [Note: Why do we even see this anymore?]
Comments Off on CA8: 20-25 minute protective sweep was not unreasonable
Being found in the near vicinity of a breaking and entering in a high crime area at night with a somewhat strange explanation for his being there justified a frisk. Defense counsel failed to distinguish between the constitutionality of the “stop” and the “frisk” in the appellate brief, but the court will decide it anyway. United States v. McMullin, 739 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 2014):
The local sheriff’s office set up a checkpoint in violation of state statute and caught defendant for DWI. The trial court suppressed for violation of the statute and the constitution, and the court of appeals affirmed. It was a “substantial violation,” and there was no good faith exception. State v. White, 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 151 (February 4, 2014).
The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant, and it ripened to probable cause when he fled the scene. United States v. Gray, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16106 (W.D. Pa. February 10, 2014).*
2255 COA denied on IAC for not raising Jones before it was decided. United States v. Rayford, 556 Fed. Appx. 678 (10th Cir. 2014).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NC: Substantial violation of state law on checkpoints voids DWI arrest
Cell phone search incident at time of arrest is upheld, and the First Circuit’s Wurie is rejected. [Note: SCOTUS granted cert in Wurie three days later. It’s not that hard to keep up if you have the slightest curiosity.] United States v. Reyes, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16441 (N.D. Ga. January 14, 2014):
Social workers entered plaintiff’s home in January 2010 in this § 1983 case, but the Sixth Circuit didn’t hold directly that the Fourth Amendment applied to social workers until Andrews v. Hickman County, 700 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the social workers get qualified immunity. The argument that Andrews was wrongly decided and the Fourth Amendment always applied to social workers doesn’t go anywhere in the qualified immunity analysis. Brent v. Wenk, 555 Fed. Appx. 519 (6th Cir. 2014): Continue reading →
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CA6 law was unclear prior to 2012 whether 4A applied to social workers, so they get qualified immunity
The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act was effective July 9, 2012, not October 1st as defendants contend. Therefore, the search warrant for synthetic drugs was properly issued on July 20, 2012. United States v. Riley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15588 (D. Nev. February 7, 2014), following United States v. Carlson, No. 12-cr-305-DSD-LIB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130253, 2013 WL 5125434, at *21 (D. Minn. Sept. 12, 2013).
Defendant’s stop was based on whether the court believes the officers that the tag light was out, and it does. United States v. Broadwell, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15215 (M.D. Ga. February 6, 2014).*
Defendant’s consent to search is found voluntary. United States v. Watkins, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15792 (W.D. N.Y. February 7, 2014).*
Comments Off on D.Minn.: Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act was effective July 9, 2012, so SW issued July 20th was valid
Officers obtained a search warrant for defendant’s computer in Kansas for child pornography. When they got to the house, defendant was gone, visiting in Oklahoma, his roommate said, with the computer. Officers went back to the magistrate and got another search warrant for the house in Oklahoma where defendant was staying, but they were to search only for defendant’s computer. The search warrant was issued without authority, and even the good faith exception won’t save it even though this was all clearly done in good faith. United States v. Krueger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15495 (D. Kan. February 7, 2014):
Defendant’s traffic stop was justified by not having on a seatbelt, and a drug dog alerted. His one witness was his admittedly biased girlfriend whose testimony was contradicted by the officers. Credibility goes with the officers. United States v. Enmund, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15081 (S.D. Ga. January 6, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14992 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2014).*
The plain view issue turns on whether the court believes the officer that defendant’s girlfriend opened a nightstand drawer making for the plain view or the officer opened it. Based on an analysis of the credibility factors, the court goes with the officer. United States v. Gonzalez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15103 (E.D. Pa. January 30, 2014).*
The district court properly decided against plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim, but it’s not going to tell us what it was. Humphries v. Chicarelli, 554 Fed. Appx. 401 (6th Cir. 2014).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: No seatbelt justified stop; drug dog readily at hand
A sexually violent predator in civil confinement and on probation in Texas has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his stuff while confined there. Goodwin v. State, 416 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2013):
The CI was worth crediting here because he had great detail about defendant going to California to score some marijuana to bring back to Idaho to sell, and he was corroborated by two controlled buys off the defendant. When defendant made two traffic violations, his stop was valid and reasonable suspicion existed to extend the stop. State v. Widner, 2013 Ida. App. LEXIS 89 (December 10, 2013).*
The CI here gave probable cause for defendant’s stop, not just reasonable suspicion, and the officer was also authorized to do a patdown on what he knew. State v. Cole, 128 So. 3d 649 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013).*
No cause of action was stated against the defendant hospital for participating in a search and seizure on its premises. “There were no allegations of any factual or legal basis for liability against Desoto Regional for purported violations of Louisiana law or the Fourth Amendment for search and seizure.” Also, [in passing] the USMJ upheld the search in federal court [so why not collateral estoppel?]. Miller v. Desoto Reg’l Health Sys., 2013 La. App. LEXIS 2530 (La. App. 3 Cir. December 11, 2013).*
Comments Off on ID: CI’s great detail corroborated by two controlled buys off defendant
Defendant was in an accident, and the state took her blood. The state conceded a lack of probable cause to believe that defendant was operating a vehicle under the influence. The Kansas statute authorizing a blood test solely because of being in an accident, without more, violates the Fourth Amendment. The court refuses to follow a similar Oklahoma case as having an “unsatisfying” analysis, instead following the weight of authority. A driver’s consent under Kansas’ implied consent statute, without more, does not constitute valid consent under the Fourth Amendment. The good faith exception as the state’s alternative fails for lack of proof of good faith. State v. Declerck, 2014 Kan. App. LEXIS 5 (February 7, 2014):
Defendant when stopped for a traffic offense gave his brother’s name, and the stop thus really dragged out because he had no DL and didn’t look like his brother. Then he was nervous. A search of the area around where he was sitting was supported by probable cause for providing false information to the officer. That search and a more intense one was also supported by the search incident doctrine. United States v. Mahler, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15784 (D. Idaho February 6, 2014):
Grand jury testimony may be considered under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) and 1101(d)(1) at the suppression hearing on the question of standing. United States v. Dollson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13210 (E.D. Pa. February 4, 2014).
Hearsay is admissible in suppression hearings. Parker v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (February 4, 2014).
Defendant consented to pretrial release inspection of his computers, which he did not contest. Instead, he contested only the scope of the consent, which the court found objectively reasonable based on the representations of counsel at the hearing. United States v. Kelly, 553 Fed. Appx. 91 (2d Cir. 2014).*
NYPD officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant and two others for trespassing in an apartment building when building security called the police to complain of the trespassers, and the group as described was found on the 10th floor. United States v. Bert, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13158 (E.D. N.Y. February 3, 2014).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Grand jury testimony may be considered at the suppression hearing on the question of standing
"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.
