Probation searches are a codified exception to the warrant requirement and not in violation of the Washington constitution. State v. Smith, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1418 (July 21, 2025).
Leaving defendant’s vehicle on a parking lot potentially for days was not a reasonable alternative, and the towing and inventory were within department standards. United States v. Scott, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138755 (M.D. Ala. May 30, 2025),*
“So regardless of whether Defendant Richards actually engaged in a ‘turn’ or a ‘movement,’ Officer Reetz cannot be deemed under the circumstances to have violated the Fourth Amendment by reasonably (even if erroneously) concluding that both a signal and immediate egress into the nearest lane were required under the controlling law and facts. See Heien, 574 U.S. at 60 (“The question here is whether reasonable suspicion can rest on a mistaken understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition. We hold that it can.”); see also Scott, 693 F. App’x at 837-38 (same).” United States v. Richards, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138759 (M.D. Ala. June 19, 2025).*
Louisville Courier Journal: Ex-LMPD detective Brett Hankison sentenced to 33 months in prison by Josh Wood (“A federal judge sentenced former Louisville Police detective Brett Hankison to 33 months in prison for the shots he fired during the fatal 2020 raid on Breonna Taylor’s apartment. The July 21 sentence was in defiance to a last-minute request from federal prosecutors that Hankison receive only a one-day sentence.” The offense was based at least in part on a Fourth Amendment violation with the government arguing that reasonable minds could disagree.
Posted inExcessive force, Uncategorized|Comments Off on Louisville Courier Journal: Ex-LMPD detective Brett Hankison sentenced to 33 months in prison
Not strictly a Fourth Amendment case, but interesting: Defendant’s place in a child molestation case was searched and adult porn was seized. The porn was admitted over objection as 404(b) evidence, and it was prejudicial and completely inadmissible because it had no bearing on the case. Collum v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 323 (June 27, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge of omitted exculpatory information was conclusory. State v. Ewing, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 83 (July 17, 2025).*
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the outdoor common area of her apartment complex. Alicea v. City of Bridgeport, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17681 (2d Cir. July 17, 2025).*
2255 petitioner’s counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress because of a lack of standing. Mays v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137535 (W.D. Tenn. July 18, 2025).*
“Given the length of Estrada’s membership in the two groups, the volume of files depicting child pornography shared during Estrada’s membership, and the detailed description of a file shared while Estrada was a participant in one of the groups, the magistrate judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause.” United States v. Ramirez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135907 (D. Mass. July 16, 2025).*
On the body camera video and the papers in the motion for summary judgment, the officers had reasonable suspicion for detaining plaintiff. Burlow v. City of Detroit, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134529 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2025).*
Aside from the fact defendant’s guilty plea waived all his pretrial motions, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress that couldn’t prevail. United States v. Valentino, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136196 (D. Minn. July 17, 2025).*
Perdomo v. Noem, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137993 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2025), posted here, holds that reasonable suspicion is required for immigration stops and race alone isn’t enough. The government’s motion for stay pending appeal is denied.
Without more testimony about the intersection, the court finds the officer’s testimony about a rolling stop violating the law was conclusory and rejected. Plus, lack of testimony that the dog was reliable makes its sniff unreliable. People v. Jie Lin, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6080 (Richmond Co. July 3, 2025).* [This is an outlier and won’t be in the book.]
Defendant litigated his search claim in the trial court and lost. He can’t say he proceeded to trial in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [That’s a new claim I’ve never heard before.] Singleton v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134608 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2025).*
Cleveland PD used AI for facial recognition to get probable cause for a search warrant. Cleveland.com: Did Cleveland police cut corners when they used AI to recover a suspected murder weapon? Appeals court to decide. Oral argument August 22. Since the threshold for probable cause is so low, I suspect this will come out against the accused. AI can’t be used as trial evidence to convict, but it might be usable for a search warrant. Note: I’ve had use of AI in my discovery motions for over two years.
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on Cleveland.com: Did Cleveland police cut corners when they used AI to recover a suspected murder weapon? Appeals court to decide
Relying on the en banc opinion in Mayo v. United States, 315 A.3d 606 (D.C. 2024), flight in a high-crime area is not reasonable suspicion. People flee to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the police, who just might be potentially too aggressive. D.W. v. United States, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 198 (July 17, 2025):
The protective sweep under a mattress here was unjustified. Protective sweeps have to be based on known facts, not theories. Here, without deciding whether it was justified, on this record, lifting a mattress was unreasonable. There was no reason to believe anyone could be hiding under it. United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17763 (7th Cir. July 17, 2025).
The video doesn’t discredit the officer sufficiently to undermine the trial court’s findings of reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. State v. Mangen, 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 227 (July 14, 2025).*
2255 petitioner litigated his suppression motion on the merits before trial and he doesn’t get to do it again. Conley v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133810 (D. Md. July 11, 2025).*
Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant, and that authorized entry of the third party’s premises, something he doesn’t even acknowledge in his 2255 petition. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134683 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2025).*
The search warrant affidavit was not sworn to before a judge as required by the statute, but it was sworn to before an officer with the authority to take oaths. That was sufficient for the good faith exception to apply. Suppression reversed. State v. Rios, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5080 (Tex. App. – Amarillo July 17, 2025).
In this federal homicide case with cell phone tracking, any motion to suppress would have failed, so defense counsel couldn’t be ineffective for not pursuing it. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134356 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s complaint that officers falsified information for the search warrant that led to his case fails in § 1915A screening. He doesn’t allege what’s false or what was seized based on the falsity. Parker v. McMullum, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134360 (W.D. Okla. June 10, 2025).*
As a whole, the affidavit for warrant wasn’t materially misleading, and it still showed probable cause. United States v. Ramirez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135907 (D. Mass. July 16, 2025).*
“Roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What the federal government would have this Court believe—in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening.” Perdomo v. Noem, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134409 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2025):
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on NYLJ: ‘This Is Not Science Fiction’: Trump Administration Uses Peter Thiel’s ‘Planantir’ Surveillance Technology to Spy on Americans
The officer’s use of a translation app on his cell phone to communicate with defendant didn’t unreasonably extend the stop. If limited questions can be asked, then logically an app can translate. Here, cell coverage was limited so that slowed the stop. United States v. Salvador, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133082 (E.D. La. July 14, 2025).
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to boarding and searching boats in international waters occupied by non-citizens. United States v. Winiewski, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132912 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2025).
The trial court didn’t err in finding that the person who consented to the entry had apparent authority. State v. Hayes, 2025-Ohio-2483 (3d Dist. July 14, 2025).*
The affidavit was not so lacking in probable cause that there was no good faith basis for believing there was. United States v. Melvin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17290 (3d Cir. July 14, 2025).*
Plaintiff was arrested four times in nine months, but he doesn’t plausibly allege that the arrests lacked probable cause. Hernandez v. Sheriff of Manatee Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17342 (11th Cir. July 14, 2025)*:
The property searched was defendant’s father’s but he occasionally stayed there and had a key. On the day in question, police saw him going in. While he has standing, he loses on the merits of probable cause for the search and the good faith exception. United States v. Perkins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132915 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2025):
2255 petitioner prevails on a Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. There clearly was no probable cause for defendant’s arrest and car search. United States v. Henry, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133252 (N.D. Ind. July 10, 2025).*
The government says it’s not going to use the product of the search warrant at trial, so the question is moot. United States v. Banyan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133410 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2025).*
There was a reasonable inference that stolen property would be found on defendant’s property after he was seen driving a stolen UTV. State v. Barton, 2025 Ore. App. LEXIS 1181 (July 9, 2025).*
Appellate counsel wasn’t ineffective for not appealing the denials of suppression motions because none of them would have prevailed. Hill v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133300 (E.D. Mo. July 14, 2025).*
“At the very least, leaving three large dogs effectively unrestrained in a public place to flee from law enforcement certainly amounts to more than the ‘mere refusal to cooperate’ that is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Cf. [Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125].” United States v. Boone, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133655 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2025).
The affidavit for warrant was not so lacking in its showing of probable cause that the good faith exception would not apply. United States v. Melvin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17290 (3d Cir. July 14, 2025).*
“The caselaw makes clear that weaving within a lane of traffic, by itself, may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop.” There was cause for this stop. State v. Mangen, 2025 Minn. App. LEXIS 227 (Ct. App. July 14, 2025).*
“The warrant’s authorization to review all contents of the phone ‘in order to locate evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the Subject Crimes’ was not overbroad or insufficiently particular where the warrant included a detailed and particularized list of the information to be seized.” People v. Morris, 2025 NY Slip Op 03261, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4201 (1st Dept. July 14, 2025).*
Posted inParticularity, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Abandoning three large dogs to flee is more than just “mere refusal to cooperate”
“The warrant in this case has a catch-all phrase as to the types of evidence to be searched but is affirmatively limited to evidence of drug trafficking, manufacture, delivery, and possession. The warrant therefore satisfies the requirement described in cases such as Riccardi that ‘warrants for computer searches must affirmatively limit the search to evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material.’” United States v. Barnes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132599 (D. Wyo. June 24, 2025).
On the whole, there was a substantial basis for issuance of this search warrant. “Further, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to rely on the probable cause opinion made by an assistant prosecuting attorney who reviewed the warrant and the probable cause determination made by the judge who issued the warrant.” United States v. Mangol, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131769 (W.D. Mo. May 23, 2025).*
There was collective knowledge supporting defendant’s arrest. United States v. Badillo-Hernández, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132593 (D.P.R. July 10, 2025).*
Fleeing a wrecked car and leaving cell phones behind is abandonment. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. State v. Sawyer, 319 Neb. 435 (July 11, 2025).
The unidentified tipster was corroborated by defendant’s hand-to-hand transactions during surveillance, and that was probable cause. United States v. Mangol, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130023 (W.D. Mo. May 23, 2025).
Defendant sought to use the GPS information on his trailer to prove that he wasn’t speeding when the officer said radar showed him going over the speed limit. The GPS information is too muddled to make sense. It measures in 21 second increments. Is it average speed, top speed? Can’t tell. United States v. Aguero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132167 (W.D. Okla. July 11, 2025).*
On the totality, after a brief conversation, defendant consented to this search. “The whole encounter between the agents and Defendant lasted approximately 10 minutes. During their interaction with Defendant, the agents wore plain clothes, did not display any weapons, did not raise their voices, did not threaten Defendant, and did not handcuff or otherwise restrain Defendant. Nor did any of the agents physically touch Defendant before he was arrested. Moreover, Agent Bernecker noted that Defendant was very calm, relaxed, and cooperative during his interaction with the agents.” United States v. Stevenson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131842 (E.D. Ky. July 11, 2025).*
by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"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]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!” ---Pepé Le Pew
"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.
