Defendant’s claim that the AUSA’s signature on warrant papers is constitutionally meaningless even if it was true. Similarly, the fact the affidavit was signed on one day before one judge and the warrant issued on another day before another judge does mean anything. The information about a robbery in this case wasn’t stale; just because the robber could have disposed of the proceeds doesn’t mean that he would. It was within a really short time after the robbery. United States v. Burroughs, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169066 (D. D.C. November 29, 2012).*

Probable cause existed for defendant’s arrest, and it was more than mere propinquity (Ybarra). He was known to have driven the co-defendant to a drug deal, and the CI said that more than one person would be coming. The DEA also had prior information about defendant dealing heroin. United States v. Nunez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169893 (W.D. N.Y. February 9, 2012).*

Nervousness and four cell phones, two of which were prepaid, and conflicting travel plans between the passenger and driver was reasonable suspicion to detain for 13 minutes for a drug dog to arrive which was also reasonable. United States v. Vaughan, 700 F.3d 705 (4th Cir. 2012).*

Search of computer and CDs at the border was justified as a border search without reasonable suspicion. Alternatively, there was reasonable suspicion based on defendant’s criminal record with minors. United States v. Bunty, 617 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2008).

The defendant’s argument that his stop was unreasonably extended for spurious reasons to keep him on the side of the road until the drug drog arrived was rejected. There was reasonable suspicion. State v. Ramirez, 145 Idaho 886, 187 P.3d 1261 (App. 2008).*

Odor of ether coming from defendant’s person and car after a traffic accident justified its search. Also, officers saw a gun clip in plain view before the search. Peters v. State, 888 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. App. 2008).

Defendant’s backpack was lawfully searched incident to his arrest. Arizona v. Gant applies to vehicles, and it does not change the rules of search incident of the person. People v. Marshall, 2012 CO 72, 289 P.3d 27 (2012):

[*P14] In contrast to the search of a vehicle, the arrest of a person necessarily involves greater officer safety concerns because, unlike items in the compartment of a vehicle, the arrested individual might still be able to access those items on his person even after arrest. Similarly, because the items remain in close proximity to an arrested individual, he might still be able to access that evidence. In brief, there is a factual distinction between searches of cars and persons. This Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence reflects this distinction and, accordingly, indicates that the trial court’s extension of Gant without additional guidance from the United States Supreme Court was error. Compare Gant, 556 U.S. at 337-38, with United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 226, 94 S. Ct. 467, 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1973). As such, we turn to this Court’s precedent addressing the search of a person incident to arrest.

The officer’s observations here were more than just suspicious activities in a high crime area–he was reasonably certain that a gang fight was about to break out, and he isolated one who was particularly suspicious, questioned her, and performed a frisk. The area being “high crime” is not enough, but it is a factor in the totality. United States v. Hernandez-Mendez, 626 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 2010)*:

His concern that the previous night’s stabbing might result in retaliation near the school led him to set up a surveillance team the following afternoon. [¶] The gathering of seven Hispanic males and one Hispanic female across the street from the high school, shortly before the end of the school day, the day following a gang-related stabbing, alerted him to the possibility that the group might be planning some sort of retaliatory action. Officer Webster noted that, while some in the group looked to be school-age, several looked to be older. The males, who were gathered around a male wearing a red shirt, appeared to be having a meeting or discussion, while occasionally looking toward the school’s entrance.

The officer lacked reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in a broken window complaint in an apartment complex that was not a night crime area; there was no movement at that early hour (3:35 am) until defendant’s car started to leave the parking lot. There was nothing linking defendant’s car or defendant to the complaint. United States v. Benjamin, 481 Fed. Appx. 92 (5th Cir. 2010)*:

When viewed “in the context of the totality of circumstances,” however, these three facts do not establish reasonable suspicion. Id. at 340-41. As explained, the officers knew absolutely nothing about the vandal or vandals other than that he, she, or they had broken a window. Unlike Jaquez, this window breaking did not occur in a high-crime neighborhood. Also, more than enough time had elapsed for the vandal to have departed by car or on foot after breaking the window. Finally, the officers’ suspicion necessarily rested on an unreasonable assumption—that the vandal would have remained in the vicinity of the window that he had just broken, even after the police had arrived. Officer Kellum first arrived around 3:50 a.m. He spent the next ten minutes inside the apartment, interviewing the complainants. If the vandal had not already fled, one would certainly expect that he would have done so during that ten-minute period, knowing that the police had arrived on the scene.

There was a strong odor of marijuana coming from defendant’s car when it was stopped, and the officer got him out, and the odor was still on defendant’s person. A search of defendant’s person for drugs was justified. This was not a Terry search for weapons. State v. Abu-Enjeela, 2012 Ohio 6275, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 5445 (7th Dist. December 18, 2012).*

Pre-Jones GPS surveillance is saved by the Davis good faith exception. (The court engages in a long discussion of the rationale for those interested.) United States v. Guyton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 817 (E.D. La. January 3, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped for crossing the street in the middle in a high crime area and then turning away when he saw police. The stop was valid with reasonable suspicion for avoiding the police, and the ensuing finding a warrant and then frisk producing a gun was valid, too. United States v. Boyles, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183383 (W.D. Mo. November 21, 2012).*

On cross, the officer admitted the inventory search was a search for evidence. (“Q. And in your concern, your focus in searching that vehicle was, in large part, to find items that police could use in their investigation, true? A. That was correct.”) After the court suppressed the search, the government moved for reconsideration and this time offered the inventory search policy, which it failed to put into evidence the first time. The court didn’t like it, but considered it anyway, and still suppressed the search. If relying on inventory, the government has a duty to support it with the policy. Even on reconsideration, the motion to suppress is not set aside because government did not show the search was a true inventory. What and how it was seized was important here, and the search of the car was treated like an evidentiary search. United States v. Caskey, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167 (D. Minn. January 3, 2013):

6 The United States seems to argue that it was not required at the evidentiary hearing to define the inventory search policy or demonstrate Officer Bobo’s compliance with it. Instead, the United States argues, the limited issue before the Court and raised by Caskey was whether Officer Bobo had an “investigatory purpose” or motive in conducting the search. The Court disagrees. When Caskey argued there was an improper purpose for the search, the United States had the burden to produce evidence that the search was instead conducted pursuant to established inventory search procedures or pursuant to another exemption from the warrant requirement. See Kennedy, 427 F.3d at 1144 (“As with any warrantless search, the Government bears the burden of demonstrating the need for an exemption from the warrant requirement and that its conduct fell within the bounds of the exception.”). The United States could not meet its burden through a bald assertion that Officer Bobo complied with a largely undefined policy and thus did not have an improper purpose. Officer Bobo testified that his concern when searching the vehicle was in large part to find items that the police could use in their investigation, and he admitted that he gathered items of value only to the police. As will be further explained below, under these circumstances, the United States had the burden to prove that the gathering of evidence was conducted pursuant to a valid inventory search and not due to an investigatory purpose.

. . .

7 Normally, an investigatory motive alone does not sour an inventory search. Rowland, 341 F.3d at 780. The Court notes, however, that the NBPD inventory search policy states that “examination of the contents of a motor vehicle pursuant to a criminal investigation or with the intent of discovering evidence of a crime is a search, not an administrative inventory” and is thus subject to an entirely separate policy. (United States Ex. 1 at 1, Aug. 15, 2012, Docket No. 77; see also id. at 3.) It is thus possible that Officer Bobo’s admission of an at least partially investigative intent might cause his search to fall outside of the NBPD inventory search policy. (See Tr. 20:4-15.) For the purposes of this Order, however, the Court will assume without deciding that the evidence of Officer Bobo’s investigatory motive does not render the inventory search policy inapplicable.

. . .

The Court finds that the United States has not shown that Officer Bobo’s search fell under either the inventory search or plain view exceptions to the warrant requirement. First, the United States has not established that the requirements of the plain view exception are satisfied in the present case. Officer Bobo seized the majority, if not all, of the items from the vehicle because of their criminal nature, thus relying on the plain view exception and the inventory search policy’s requirement that items of evidentiary value be seized. Officer Bobo did not testify with specificity, however, how he was able to view each of the items he seized. See Beasley, 688 F.3d at 530. For example, the United States did not demonstrate that the Taco Bell cups and straws were in plain view because Officer Bobo provided no testimony about them.

NYT Editorial: Is the Driver Drunk? by Lincoln Caplan:

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from searching individuals without a warrant, but the Supreme Court allows exceptions to that rule for “exigent circumstances” — when the police believe that the delay involved in getting a warrant would lead to destruction of evidence.

In Missouri v. McNeely, scheduled for argument at the court on Wednesday, the police forced a driver to take a blood test at a hospital without a warrant, after he refused to take a breath test with a portable machine when he was stopped for erratic driving. The blood test showed that his blood alcohol content was 0.154 percent, or almost twice the state’s legal limit.

The affidavit for search warrant showed probable cause for a search and was not stale. The information included involved drug trafficking over a period of months from the house. That also shows nexus. Defendant’s argument that he was attempting to obtain drugs but did not have drugs fails. In any event, it all showed a fair probability drugs would be found in the house. United States v. Figueroa, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1426 (N.D. Ohio January 4, 2013):

The Affidavit does illustrate cocaine discussions and/or narcotics transactions between Figueroa and CS-3 on July 12, 2012, July 31, 2012, August 9, 2012, and August 28, 2012. According to the Affidavit, Figueroa admits to possessing marijuana, and further admits his efforts to obtain cocaine for CS-3 from his suppliers at the significant price of $35,000.00 per kilogram. In light of these continuing conversations, up to the day before the execution of the Search Warrant, there is “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found in [that] particular place,” i.e., 144 Hall Street, Akron, Ohio. United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 338 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 236).

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and a gun was in plain view in the back seat. The officer was justified in reaching in and securing the keys to the car. United States v. Huff, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1331 (D. Kan. January 4, 2013).*

Defendant argued a “snapshot” of facts, but “[t]he probable cause calculation is made based on the totality of the circumstances, rather than just a limited set of facts as argued by defendant. When all the facts associated with this investigation are considered they ‘… are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed … an offense.’ Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. at 37.” United States v. Martin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183511 (E.D. Mich. November 9, 2012)* (R&R).

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop of this vehicle for either a drug deal or an expired license. United States v. Newman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183516 (W.D. Mo. June 5, 2012)* (R&R).

Defendant was stopped because of a reasonable mistake that he was a robbery suspect for whom there was an arrest warrant. When the stop occurred, defendant reached for his waistband, and the officer did, too, retrieving a gun. The stop was with reasonable, albeit mistaken, suspicion. State v. Pickens, 2012 Ohio 2901, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2543 (5th Dist. June 22, 2012).

“The tip, the suspects’ location, Detective Almeida’s knowledge of Teixeira’s ineligibility to possess a firearm, and the suspects’ movements [“blading”] once Detective Almeida approached combined to provide a basis for Detective Almeida’s reasonable suspicion that Teixeira and Shaw were engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Shaw, 874 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D. Mass. 2012).*

Defendant’s car was lawfully impounded; the officer did not need to leave it on an exit ramp where it was a hazard. Scott v. State, 316 Ga. App. 341, 729 S.E.2d 481 (2012).*

Where there is probable cause as to a house, there is no reason to limit the search as to parts of it. Here, it was argued a bedroom should have been excluded. United States v. Pule, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183316 (E.D. Tenn. July 5, 2012):

As argued by the government, when there is reliable information that drug trafficking is being conducted at or from a residence, “there is no reason for the warrant not to authorize a search of the entire house.” United States v. Elder, Nos. 91-5605, 91-5606, 1992 WL 42346, at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 3, 1992). If, however, officers knew or should have known that a building contains multiple “separate dwelling units,” the officers are obligated to exclude from the warrant any units for which they lack probable cause to conduct a search. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84-85 (1987). Here, however, Defendant has made no argument that his bedroom should have been excluded from the warrant when it was issued, so I FIND the warrant was properly issued and will turn to the issue of execution of the warrant.

[Note: As a functional matter, the defendant’s argument would be impossible to enforce short of saying “only [suspect’s] bedroom and common areas can be searched under this warrant.” How can the police be expected to know the layout of the house? They can’t. Also, for what it’s worth, I’ve had drug cases were the drugs were kept in guest and kid’s bedroom closets and those bedrooms were occupied at the time of the search. It just can’t work in practice.]

NPR yesterday:

Our Privacy Delusions (On the Media, “We all claim to want privacy online, but that desire is rarely reflected in our online behavior. OTM producer Sarah Abdurrahman looks into the futile attempts we make to protect our digital identities.”)

The NCTC: Obama’s “Pre-Crime Squad”? (On the Media, “Last March, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was granted unprecedented power to collect data on ordinary U.S. citizens, data like flight records or lists of casino employees. Critics have likened the NCTC to the ‘Pre-Crime Squad’ in the movie ‘Minority Report.’ Wall Street Journal reporter Julia Angwin talks with Bob about this dramatic shift in the intelligence community’s power over US citizens.”)

“If You’ve Got Nothing to Hide, You’ve Got Nothing to Fear” (On the Media, “Here’s a common refrain in privacy discussions: ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.’ There’s also Google’s then-CEO Eric Schmidt famously saying: ‘If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.’ Brooke speaks with George Washington University law professor Daniel Solove who says those types of arguments misunderstand privacy entirely.”)

National Security Letters and Gag Orders (On the Media, “The most serious kind of subpoena – called a ‘National Security Letter’ – used to have a lifetime gag-order automatically attached. That is until Nicholas Merrill appealed his and won the right to talk about it. Despite 50,000 national security letters a year, there are only three organizations that have ever won the right to say they got one. In a segment that originally aired in January of 2011, Nick Merrill tells Bob why he’s the exception and the rule.”)

License Plate Readers and Your Privacy (On the Media, “Police car mounted license plate readers collect date, time and location information and are used by law enforcement around the country to help catch criminals. But when Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Eric Roper filed a Freedom of Information request for information on his own car, he got a lot more than he bargained for. In a segment that originally aired in August of 2012, Bob talks to Roper about how Minneapolis police and agencies across the country deal with this potentially sensitive location information.”)

The Art of Self-Surveillance (On the Media, “In 2002, artist and professor Hasan Elahi spent six months being interrogated off and on by the FBI as a suspected terrorist. In response to this experience, he created Tracking Transience, a website that makes his every move available to the FBI – and everybody else. In a segment that originally aired in November of 2011, Brooke talks to Elahi about the project.”)

h/t Ivan G. Dominguez, NACDL Director of Public Affairs and Communications

Officers had a search warrant for the house, and it was not so objectively lacking in its basis that the good faith exception would not apply. The parties didn’t put the affidavit and warrant into evidence, so the court takes judicial notice of the warrant. n.10. United States v. Daniels, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183305 (M.D. Ala. December 12, 2012) (R&R).* [Note: The court spends several paragraphs discussing the GFE, but nary a word about the factual basis to see if it is correct that it was not “bare bones.” This is what the good faith exception is getting to: we never know whether a warrant was issued with probable cause or not. “[A]nd no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, …” In my experience, there is probable cause about 98% of the time. So why not tell us instead of spending your time telling us that the affidavit isn’t bare bones but without one fact in support?]

Officers surveilling an SUV with drugs in it in NYC saw a man in a black coat get a duffle bag out of the SUV and get into a BMW. When the BMW was stopped, the driver consented to a search. The man in the black coat, the defendant, was the passenger. The defendant did not show standing to challenge the search of the BMW. United States v. Anthis, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 784 (D. Mass. January 3, 2013).*

Does the exclusionary rule apply in pure civil forfeiture? Not sure. Let’s assume it does. Here, defendant orally consented to the search of his tractor trailer. He wrote “under protest” on the consent form. United States v. $304,980 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 650 (S.D. Ill. January 3, 2013):

One issue not briefed by the parties but bearing mention is the preliminary question of whether a Fourth Amendment-based suppression motion is proper in an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding like the case at bar. The federal courts have not answered this question uniformly. Some Courts of Appeal have held that since civil forfeiture proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the exclusionary rule applies, and suppression motions may be filed. See, e.g., U.S. v. $291,828.00 in U.S. Currency, 536 F.3d 1234, 1236-38 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture actions.”); U.S. v. $493,850.00 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture cases…. It bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, as well as ‘fruits of the poisonous tree.'”). Other courts have voiced uncertainty about the use of suppression motions in civil forfeiture actions. A 2009 Seventh Circuit case furnishes an example.

In United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627, 631 n.5 (7th Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sidestepped the potential obstacle, because the Government had not argued that the remedy of suppression is unavailable in forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 881. However, in his concurring opinion, Judge Easterbrook expressed concern with the assumption that suppression motions are appropriate in civil forfeitures:

All parties assume that the exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture, so that the res must be returned if it was improperly seized. Yet the Supreme Court has twice held that the exclusionary rule is not used in civil proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 … (1984) (deportation); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 … (1976) (taxation). See also Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 … (1998) (rule inapplicable to probation revocation). Although One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965), suppressed evidence in a forfeiture, Janis stated that this was because that forfeiture was intended as a criminal punishment. 428 U.S. at 447 n. 17…. The forfeiture in our case is civil. It is farther from a criminal prosecution than is a probation-revocation proceeding.

Suppressing the res in a civil proceeding, even though the property is subject to forfeiture, would be like dismissing the indictment in a criminal proceeding whenever the defendant was arrested without probable cause. The Supreme Court has been unwilling to use the exclusionary rule to “suppress” the body of an improperly arrested defendant…. Why then would it be sensible to suppress the res?

Marrocco, 578 F.3d at 642 (emphasis added).

SCOTUSBlog: Ask the author: Tracey Maclin on the Court and the Fourth Amendment:

The following is a series of questions posed by Orin Kerr to Tracey Maclin on the occasion of the publication of The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Welcome, Tracey. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this Question and Answer exchange for our readers. And congratulations on the publication of your book.

Question:

What inspired you to write a book on the exclusionary rule?

Answer:

Often lawyers and law students ask me to explain what the Justices were thinking when they decided a particular Fourth Amendment case. Before I started the book, I would provide an answer based on the Court’s opinion. After having taught constitutional law and criminal procedure for over twenty-five years, I have learned, however, that although a Court opinion might provide the justification for a particular result, that opinion may not reveal the motivations for the decision. I decided it was time to read the Justices’ private papers to determine the motivations behind their exclusionary rule decisions.

. . .

“Giving the finger” to a police officer is not disorderly conduct as a matter of law, and it violated the Fourth Amendment to arrest the plaintiff for it. There was no reasonable suspicion for plaintiff’s arrest. Swart v. Insogna, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 186 (2d Cir. January 3, 2013):

An irate automobile passenger’s act of “giving the finger,” a gesture of insult known for centuries,¹ to a policeman has led to a seizure of two persons ordered to return to an automobile, an arrest for disorderly conduct, a civil rights suit, and now this appeal.

1 See Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 134 F.3d 87, 91 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (reporting the use of the gesture by Diogenes to insult Demosthenes). Even earlier, Strepsiades was portrayed by Aristophanes as extending the middle finger to insult Aristotle. See Aristophanes, The Clouds (W. Arrowsmith, trans., Running Press (1962)). Possibly the first recorded use of the gesture in the United States occurred in 1886 when a joint baseball team photograph of the Boston Beaneaters and the New York Giants showed a Boston pitcher giving the finger to the Giants. See Ira P. Robbins, Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1403, 1415 (2008).

. . .

Even with the wide range of conduct subsumed under New York’s expansive definition of disorderly conduct, John’s conduct, on the Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, could not create a reasonable suspicion that a disorderly conduct violation had been or was being committed. Neither Collins, whom John says arrested him, nor Insogna, whose report says he made the arrest, had observed any disruptive conduct, any threatening conduct, any shouting, or anything that risked a public disturbance. Whether or not giving the finger is properly considered an obscene gesture, neither Collins, who had not observed the gesture, nor Insogna, who had observed it and was likely piqued by having seen it, makes any claim on appeal that the gesture was disorderly conduct. Indeed, such a gesture alone cannot establish probable cause to believe a disorderly conduct violation has occurred. “The disorderly conduct statute at issue here does not circumscribe pure speech directed at an individual. Rather, it is directed at words and utterances coupled with an intent to create a risk of public disorder ….” People v. Tichenor, 89 N.Y.2d 769, 775 (1997) (citations omitted). On the Plaintiffs’ version, probable cause did not exist for an arrest for disorderly conduct. And because an objectively reasonable police officer would not have believed that probable cause existed, neither Defendant was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment. Of course, the defense of qualified immunity and the lawfulness of the arrest itself will appropriately be in issue at trial, where both versions of the episode will be presented.

Note: Read the opinion for the officer’s rationalization for the arrest to the District Court, which the court found utterly fantastic and incredible: “giving the finger” was a distress call for a stop. Just admit it: you stopped him for contempt of cop.

The search under the search warrant in this case is not suppressed. While there was a traffic stop that could not be justified, it is excised from the affidavit for the search warrant, and the remainder still shows probable cause. While there was information that was over three months old, “the evidence was not stale because it described a firmly entrenched, widespread, and continuing narcotics trafficking organization.” There is nexus to the home of those involved in drug trafficking as a place where the drugs would be kept. Furthermore, GPS tracking on a cell phone used in drug trafficking put it regularly at the home, and there were officer observations of comings and goings to the home. United States v. Silva, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183043 (W.D. Wash. December 31, 2012):

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.” United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 276 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir.1986)). Under the law of this Circuit, the Affidavit’s details regarding Palacios-Rodriguez’s lengthy involvement in the DTO, including supplying cocaine to others in the conspiracy and participating in other narcotics transactions while living at the Edmonds Apartment, was sufficient basis to believe that contraband might be found at the residence. …

U.S. District Courts have about 32,000 more opinions on Lexis in 2012 than 2011, and they doubled since 2007. The rough numbers (because I can only estimate):

2012 184,000
2011 142,000
2009 122,000
2008 106,000
2007 95,000

An increasing number are search and seizure cases, so lawyers have not stopped litigating the issues.

I don’t know that the U.S. District Courts are putting out more written opinions, but I do know that Lexis has a lot more, including USMJ R&R’s that maybe used to be overlooked. Still, I’m avoiding civil cases because of time constraints. A lot of Fourth Amendment law is made in civil cases, so, if you know of one worth mentioning here, let me know.

Number of posts here passed the 10,000 mark long ago. There were 1,669 in 2012. This site has been on two platforms. The first is gone, and the cases worth citing integrated into the book supplement. Everything without an * following the citation through summer 2012 is in the supplement. There have been 8100+ postings on this platform, so probably 10,500 total? This blog is ten years old in 7½ weeks.

Coming: On the 10th Anniversary I hope to remember and post my “8 rules” of Fourth Amendment reality. So much has changed since I became a lawyer. Some rules from 40 years ago are on their heads, but the Fourth Amendment cases are becoming more predictable for the police with “bright line rules” and courts way more often than not defaulting to the police testimony as the truth.

Consent after an illegal entry was a consequence of the entry and would be suppressed. One of the critical officers involved and the defendant didn’t testify at the suppression hearing, and the court will give the parties an opportunity to say what else they would do and how it would change the outcome [“Given the serious consequences of the Court’s findings and analysis, the Court will provide the parties an opportunity to request a further hearing before this Order shall be deemed final.”] United States v. Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115642 (N.D. Ga. August 15, 2012).*

A protective sweep on serving an arrest warrant was justified by officers knowing that there was a car foreign to the premises there, someone other than defendant and his wife was getting mail there, and the defendant was known for violence because of his prior arrests. United States v. Crail, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115540 (S.D. Ohio August 16, 2012).*

The search of defendant’s car was justified by the automobile exception with probable cause or the search incident doctrine although the car was moved before the search to the police station. Defendant was stopped on a street, and a crowd had begun to form. It was within the officers’ discretion to move the car for the search for officer safety. United States v. Thompson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179981 (E.D. Pa. December 20, 2012).

Defendant was stopped for not wearing a seatbelt, and the officer took his DL back to the patrol car for a computer check which took eight minutes. By then backup arrived, and the officer got out and asked about drugs. That additional questioning was supported by furtive movements in the car and defendant’s brother being a known gang member. On review by the District Court, the stop was broken down into five parts, and each supported the next and overall was reasonable. United States v. Marin-Sanchez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180226 (E.D. Wis. December 20, 2012), R&R 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180224 (E.D. Wis. November 27, 2012).*