Defendant was IDed by a CI as a drug dealer, so the police surveilled him and noticed his movements at and from his house were consistent with being a drug dealer, and then a trash pull pretty much confirmed it. Probable cause was evident in the affidavit for search warrant. A Franks hearing wasn’t required. “In this case, even excluding all controverted statements from the Affidavit and including the omissions that Marion alleges, the Affidavit would support the Issuing Magistrate’s finding of probable cause.” United States v. Marion, 547 Fed. Appx. 283 (4th Cir. 2013).*
The CI was identified with established reliability, and his information, further corroborated provided reasonable suspicion for stopping defendant. United States v. Dockery, 547 Fed. Appx. 339 (4th Cir. 2013).*
The parties dispute whether the defendant’s vehicle was parked on the curtilage or not such that it could be searched under a warrant for the house. That doesn’t matter because it could be searched under plain view leading to the automobile exception because the evidence the police seized could be seen in it. State v. Hunt, 2013-Ohio-5326, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5551 (10th Dist. December 5, 2013).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CA4: CI had real details, and he was corroborated by trash pull
Defendant had been visiting in apartment for 4-5 days, and he kept a lot of stuff there. He could come and go as he pleased. He had standing. The search warrant was valid with probable cause. The apartment was secured for a warrant after a knock and talk. United States v. Will, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170577 (W.D. Mich. November 26, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170583 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2013).*
Same as to standing. United States v. Vallejo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170963 (D. Neb. October 16, 2013).*
A turn signal violation justified the stop. The stop was not unreasonably extended because the officer had to sort out the paperwork and who was going to drive the car. United States v. Taylor, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170967 (D. Neb. November 13, 2013).*
Comments Off on W.D.Mich. & D.Neb.: Visitor in apt for days had standing
Defendant ran a licensed child care facility, and the license provide for consent to records searches. Agents of the state showed up to search her records. A briefcase was also seized without a warrant. She had no standing as to the briefcase. United States v. Crumpton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170756 (S.D. Ind. December 4, 2013).* [Note: Regulatory search authority not mentioned, and it would not have supported the search of the briefcase anyway.]
“The court finds that the evolution of the instant traffic stop into a drug investigation was supported by Officer Baker’s reasonable suspicion at every step.” United States v. Showell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171280 (M.D. Pa. December 5, 2013).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not arguing “forced abandonment” since defendant was not illegally seized at the time he abandoned the drugs. United States v. Ware, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170536 (E.D. Pa. December 2, 2013).*
Comments Off on S.D.Ind.: Child care provider consented to entry by accepting license
Information in addition to the affidavit was supposedly given to the magistrate, but it’s not in the record, so we don’t know what it is. The showing of probable cause was so lacking that the search warrant should not have issued. Accordingly, the good faith exception doesn’t apply. State v. Johndro, 2013 ME 106, 2013 Me. LEXIS 106 (December 5, 2013):
Defendant satisfies the performance prong of Strickland because it was determined his motion to suppress was waived by defense counsel’s failure to file it. Because the merits issue for prejudice was based on consent, there had to be at least an offer of proof as to how he might have won the motion to suppress, and here there was nothing for the court to evaluate to even grant a hearing. State v. Michailides, 2013-Ohio-5316, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5538 (8th Dist. December 5, 2013):
Nexus of probable cause for the place to be searched may be inferred from the facts. Here, possession of pseudoephedrine made it reasonable to infer that the defendant was operating a small methamphetamine in his house. United States v. Masters, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170853 (W.D. Tenn. December 4, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171673 (W.D. Tenn. September 23, 2013).
The information from the CI was corroborated enough to make it believable, and corroboration made PC. United States v. Hall, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170844 (E.D. Tenn. November 22, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171669 (E.D. Tenn. September 25, 2013).*
Defendant’s stop was based on a traffic offense, but, by collective knowledge, the officer knew at least by reasonable suspicion that defendant likely had a significant quantity of marijuana on him. United States v. Bruce, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170948 (D. Ariz. September 25, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170947 (D. Ariz. December 4, 2013).*
Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Nexus of probable cause for the place to be searched may be inferred
Evading a DL checkpoint is reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. Defendant stopped in the middle of the road and made a three-point turn around, and officers went after him and stopped him. The court of appeals reversed and suppressed in an unpublished opinion. State v. Griffin, 366 N.C. 473 (April 12, 2013).
Compare (search “avoiding + checkpoint”):
Posted 3/17/13: Avoidance of an immigration checkpoint by turning around was not illegal nor reasonable suspicion. Articulable facts for reasonable suspicion must also be present. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Castro, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. N.M. 2013).
Posted 4/23/12: Following the Eighth Circuit, avoiding a DUI checkpoint alone is not enough to make reasonable suspicion. Here, however, there was more. State v. Rademaker, 2012 SD 28, 813 N.W.2d 174 (2012).
Posted 1/10/10: Defendant pulled off I-70 in Kansas after coming upon a ruse checkpoint. At that exit were only a few houses. He was followed and he pulled into a driveway, saw the police, and was startled. The officer could conclude that there was either reasonable suspicion the car was carrying drugs or they were casing houses for a burglary. [This is a stretch to find reasonable suspicion, which it does.] United States v. Neff, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 623 (D. Kan. January 5, 2010)
Comments Off on NC Spring Turkey: Evading a DL checkpoint is reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop
The arrest of defendant for carrying a weapon, a police baton, was without probable cause to believe he was going to presently use it against another person. Also, search incident of his car for the future potential crime of impersonating an officer is without probable cause. Tuckson v. United States, 77 A.3d 357 (D.C. 2013):
Arrest outside the officer’s territorial jurisdiction is valid as the arrest by a private citizen would be. This is well settled in this state. State v. Horn, 2013 W. Va. LEXIS 962 (September 26, 2013).
Defendant consented to a DUI blood test and he was not misled. He knew that the results would be used against him. Commonwealth v. Smith, 77 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013)* (concur; concur).
The drug dog arrived within eight minutes, and the questioning and dealing with the paperwork for the traffic stop had not unreasonably been extended. United States v. Chin, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138101 (D. Vt. September 26, 2013).*
Comments Off on WV: Arrest outside the officer’s territorial jurisdiction is valid as citizen’s arrest
Two Posner opinions of note involving the Fourth Amendment decided a day apart:
In Balthazar v. City of Chicago, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22744 (7th Cir. November 8, 2013), police had a search warrant and were in an apartment building, and the officer with the battering ram went to the wrong door. Another officer yelled “wrong door,” but he couldn’t check the swing, and broke the door. They went to the right door and entered. The city promptly paid to fix the door, but the officers didn’t otherwise “search.” Plaintiff sued under § 1983. At trial, it was apparent she was lying, so they had to go with alternate theory and lost. “ If you know you’re in the wrong place—a place you’re not authorized to search or want to search—the “unavoidable glance through the open door is not a search.”.*
Morrow v. May, 735 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2013)*, is a false arrest § 1983 case. It’s great, entertaining writing (appellant’s counsel wouldn’t think so) and you wonder why there was an appeal, but it adds nothing to the body of Fourth Amendment law.
Comments Off on CA7: An “unavoidable glance through the open door is not a search.”
Defendant’s purse in her lap at the time of her arrest could be searched incident to her arrest in a car. It was clearly associated with her person. State v. Byrd, 178 Wn.2d 611, 310 P.3d 793 (2013), revg State v. Byrd, 162 Wn. App. 612, 258 P.3d 686 (2011) (posted here):
State fails to show that information from the CI, who had since died, provided justification for the defendant’s stop. The search incident also had no justification. And the majority really chides the defense (“slams” would be a better word) for blaming the defendant for the state’s failure to show probable cause. (This state will allow an objection at trial on search and seizure grounds even though a motion to suppress, the better practice, is not filed.) State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 409, 747 S.E.2d 784 (2013)*:
Defendant was questioned for having sex with a developmentally disabled teenager who could not talk. The officer noticed dried blood on his hands, and swabbed it with distilled water. It proved to be the victim’s. The taking of the blood sample was reasonable under Cupp v. Murphy. Dardy v. State, 123 So. 3d 543 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012):
Defendant dumped his bicycle and fled on foot, so he was not seized. He argued that the officers provoked his flight, but that was rejected and still wouldn’t make a seizure. He was not seized until he was tackled. His flight combined with holding his pants like he was holding a gun was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2013).*
“[T]he Court is not aware of any case holding that a person’s consent is involuntary simply because he knew that there was evidence of crime on the premises sought to be searched.” United States v. Henry, 939 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (N.D. Ga. 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97076 (N.D. Ga. June 6, 2013).*
Where a reasonable person would have had to have believed he was free to leave and not answer questions, he was not in custody for Miranda purposes. United States v. Wright-Darrisaw, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95615 (W.D. N.Y. July 9, 2013).*
Comments Off on CA6: Defendant not seized when he fled on foot; only after he was tackled
"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.
