Defendant filed a motion to suppress the inventory search of a black zippered bag in his car. At trial, however, he denied the bag was his. He still had standing under the state constitution because of the higher expectation of privacy recognized in this state. (State v. Jim, 2022-NMCA-022, 508 P.3d 937, decided after the trial.) The inventory search of the bag was unnecessary to protect the property. When defendant sought to have someone else take control of the vehicle, the officers denied it. That showed that a search was unnecessary to protect it from others. State v. Sanders, 2024 N.M. App. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 17, 2024).
Defendant’s consistent denial of possession or ownership of the stuff seized in this case shows he had no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus no standing. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress. Ulmer v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8467 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 17, 2024).*
Posted inStanding, State constitution|Comments Off on NM: Def had standing in zippered bag in car under state constitution despite denial of ownership at trial
Police dog’s charging and biting a guest of the officer was accidental, not excessive force. Fourth Amendment claim dismissed. Whitworth v. Kling, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1039 (8th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024) (The court cited a 1999 Arkansas case that the Arkansas constitution’s search and seizure provision is interpreted the same as the Fourth Amendment, completely ignoring a series of cases starting in 2002 (Griffin v. State, 347 Ark. 788, 67 S.W.3d 582 (2002); State v. Sullivan, 348 Ark. 647, 74 S.W.3d 215 (2002) (I argued Sullivan.); State v. Harmon, 353 Ark. 568, 113 S.W.3d 75 (2003)) saying that it is not, depending on the issue. Either the law clerks should be ashamed of themselves for obviously sloppy work, or it’s intentional to attempt to cloud Arkansas law, which is none of this court’s business. Also, for what it’s worth, the entire Arkansas court has turned over since then, so we can only hope they will follow precedent.)
“In this case, Officer Simmons had the requisite probable cause of criminal activity to search Mr. Rinella’s vehicle. The unchallenged factual findings establish that Officer Simmons observed multiple indicators of criminal activity, including the unusually long stop at the intersection, abnormal nervousness, avoiding eye contact, and fixation on the backpack in the front passenger seat. Mr. Rinella told Officer Simmons that he was traveling to an establishment known to be associated with drug trafficking. He also admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier in the day, that there may be a marijuana roach in the vehicle, and that a K-9 sniff would probably alert for marijuana.” State v. Appellant, 2024-Ohio-152 (9th Dist. Jan. 17, 2024).*
Posted inExcessive force, Probable cause|Comments Off on CA8: Police dog’s accidental biting of guest of officer not 4A excessive force
Even if the officer was outside his jurisdiction when defendant was stopped, that’s for criminal cases, not driver’s license revocations, which are civil. No exclusionary rule here. Craig v. Dir. of Revenue, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 23 (Jan. 16, 2024) (en banc).
“In short, under the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Landeros had reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was occurring because he knew that the area in which he observed Cummings’s vehicle was a hot spot for drug distribution, the time of night when he observed the vehicles was suspicious, Cummings displayed visible paranoia after he realized he was being observed, and both drivers engaged in evasive maneuvers.” Those maneuvers finally resulted in probable cause for a traffic violation. United States v. Cummings, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7671 (D.S.D. Jan. 12, 2024),* adopting 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233204 (D.S.D. Dec. 7, 2023).*
Turning over a mattress when searching a house for a person was not an unreasonable search. Adams v. State, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 8 (Jan. 17, 2024)* (people hide under mattresses all the time; reality cop shows and police reports have shown it; there are more than a dozen posts on this site saying that).
The government sought forfeiture of the owner’s cash after it was seized at DFW after a dog sniff on his bag. The owner responded with a motion to suppress under Rule 41, but that doesn’t apply in forfeiture cases. Supplemental Rule G(8)(a) does. A knowing or substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment has to be shown. The government claims consent to search, and the owner doesn’t really challenge that, arguing instead lack of a search warrant. There was reasonable suspicion for his stop boarding the airplane. The court finds consent. United States v. $39,900 in U.S. Currency, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7496 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2024).
There is no Fourth Amendment violation; therefore, qualified immunity doesn’t even come up. By the video: When the officers tried to pull defendant over, he kept driving to his own house and jumped out of the car and pulled a gun. They shot him. This was reasonable. Hodge v. Engleman, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 994 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2024)* (why was this case even filed?).
Boilerplate information in the affidavit for warrant doesn’t matter as long as the critical facts show probable cause, and here they did. There were five facts supporting probable cause here. United States v. Morton, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7580 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 16, 2024).*
Defendant claimed a Brady violation for failure to disclose a Stingray device was used to track the victim’s cell phone in his possession. It’s not. Moreover, defendant doesn’t even have standing in a stolen cell phone. Bass v. Dixon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233056 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2023), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7335 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2024):
Inevitable discovery applies to defendant giving up the passcode to his cell phone by a statement he challenged. The government had an independent basis to get into the phone to search it. United States v. Xiaolei Wu, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7511 n.3 (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2024).
Defendant’s patdown was based in significant part on suspicion he was intoxicated. But it turned out he wasn’t, and then he lied about his identity justifying the detention. United States v. Ahrendt, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7243 (D.S.D. Jan. 11, 2024).*
The smell of marijuana and other suspicious circumstances gave probable cause to search defendant’s car and a Crown Royal bag found inside. State v. Springs, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 54 (Jan. 16, 2024).*
The D.C. Cir. denied rehearing from the Twitter account search warrant for former President Trump’s account, In re Sealed Case, 77 F.4th 815 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023) (corrected and unredacted version), in In re Search of Info. Stored at Premises Controlled by Twitter, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 977 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2024). From the “statement respecting a denial of rehearing en banc,” not a dissenting opinion (sort of 7-4):
Defendant’s motion for return of his cell phone after his guilty plea was pled as a motion to suppress. Denied. He can do it over if he gets it right. State v. Cousino, 2024-Ohio-114, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 110 (6th Dist. Jan. 12, 2024).
There was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s car, and that reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause. Moreover, inevitable discovery applies because the car would have been impounded and inventoried in any event. United States v. Corbett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6443 (D. Me. Jan. 12, 2024).*
Officers had a vehicle description and description of a distinctive hat of one occupant of those involved in a Walmart theft. He saw the vehicle and a man with the hat. That was reasonable suspicion for the stop. “This was not merely a ‘hunch.’” Probable cause developed from that and a search incident was valid. United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6515 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2024).*
During a stop for stalled car, officer safety dictated the officer conduct a patdown. Seizure of a USB off defendant’s keyring was unreasonable. The stop should have ended there. Instead, the officer asked for consent which the court finds involuntary because of the continuation of the stop. Guam v. Pagsisihan, 2023 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 53 (Nov. 15, 2023).
Defendant was charged with deprivation of civil rights under color of law. His motion for judgment of acquittal is denied. There’s evidence where the jury could find that his use of deadly force during execution of a search warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Hankison, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5964 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 10, 2024).*
Plaintiff was arrested for public drunkenness by Lehigh University police and ultimately kicked out of school. The officers did not use excessive force on him. O’Keefe v. Lehigh Univ., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 853 (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2024).*
Posted inExcessive force, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on Guam: Seizure of USB found during frisk for officer safety unreasonable; clearly not a weapon
The affidavit averred that defendant came from his house and got in his car manifesting characteristics of somebody who was probably armed, although the officers could see no gun. This is all inference, which isn’t precluded. The affidavit is not bare bones, and the good faith exception applies: “Though the Court finds that the facts as stated in the Warrant are insufficient to establish probable cause, it does not find that the Warrant was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. The Court holds that the officers executed the Warrant (up until and including the recovery of a firearm) in good faith.” United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6925 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2024).*
This officer’s seeing a meth pipe in plain view during a traffic stop was probable cause to search the interior of the car. United States v. Hays, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 868 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2024).*
Defendant’s driving from home to the place of the controlled buy and back again was nexus. The controlled buy was probable cause. United States v. Phillips, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6853 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2024).*
Defendant is a D.O. accused of over prescribing. She made her substantial preliminary showing to get a Franks hearing because the affiant omitted from the affidavit for warrant that the licensing authority considered the same claims and found she acted within medical requirements. The affidavit only mentioned the complaint. The probable cause question was close. The court can’t say that the omission was enough to affect the probable cause finding without the hearing. Government’s motion to reconsider denied. United States v. Norris, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6441 (D. Me. Jan. 12, 2024).
Plaintiff was on probation for animal cruelty involving horses. A probation search was conducted looking only where horses could be kept. That was reasonable, and reasonably related to why she was on probation, and minimally invasive. Marcellino v. Geauga Cty. Humane Soc’y, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 843 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2024).*
Appellant lost on appeal on standing and plain view. His lawyer wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that the police should have frozen the scene and gotten a warrant. Hayes v. Warden Pendleton Corr. Indus. Facility, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5853 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 11, 2024).*
The driver of a car could not consent to search of a backpack that by all accounts belonged to the passenger. It was where he sat, and the driver said it wasn’t hers. Inside was men’s clothes and stuff. State v. Gietzen, 2024 ND 5, 2024 N.D. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 10, 2024).
The district court overruled the lower court’s suppression order on “judicial notice” of the defendant’s demeanor in another court, something that judge never saw. Entry without exigency. Reversed. Larsen v. State, 2024 WY 4 (Jan. 11, 2024).*
2254 petitioner admitted he got his “full and fair opportunity” to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim. Denied, and no CoA was granted. Thomas v. Langford, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 739 (10th Cir. Jan. 11, 2024).*
The parties briefed reasonable suspicion. The court finds probable cause. United States v. Garcia, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5734 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2024).*
The affidavit was lacking some important information, but it was not intentionally or recklessly misleading to the issuing magistrate. Thus, defendant’s Franks challenge fails. United States v. Hueston, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 832 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2024):
With probable cause to search defendant’s truck, that extended to the fifth-wheel trailer it was towing. State v. Crudo, 2024 Kan. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 12, 2024).
The “Rodriguez moment” came when the officer asked for consent to search. On the totality, the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. Each piece, maybe not, but it’s not “divide and conquer.” On the totality, yes. United States v. Miller, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4952 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2024).*
2255 petitioner didn’t challenge his body cavity search in the district court, and he had a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate it. He appealed and that was denied. His 2255 fails under Stone and on the merits of the search as to ineffective assistance of counsel. McClinton v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5470 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2024).*
There was no reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant for what the officer thought could have been a hand-to-hand drug transaction where he saw nothing exchanged. Defendant stopped along side another car facing in different directions, and they talked to each other through open windows. Then they moved to another spot and defendant leaned into the other car. Again, nothing was seen being passed. People v. Messano, 2024 NY Slip Op 00097, 2024 N.Y. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 11, 2024).
“In short, each affidavit provided specific and compelling evidence to support that Hess issued various prescriptions for illegitimate purposes and outside the usual course of medical practice between 2014 and 2019. As pointed out in the Government’s opposition briefing [ECF No 32], Hess attacks isolated portions of the affidavits, focusing on information which was not included within the affidavits. However, the Court must apply a ‘totality-of-the-circumstances’ test when evaluating probable cause and cannot use a piecemeal approach.” Other things challenged were not material. United States v. Hess, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4693 (N.D. W.Va. Jan. 9, 2024).*
Defendant wasn’t seized until an officer grabbed his arm. By then, however, there was reasonable suspicion of crime justifying a Terry stop. United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4747 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 9, 2024).*
Posted inProbable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure|Comments Off on NY: No RS where two men talked car-to-car and then moved, and one leaned in other car; nothing seen passed
After acquired information that a cell site simulator might have been misused doesn’t show actual innocence or undermine guilty plea. “The appellant pleaded guilty, and his assertion that he has new evidence that law enforcement illegally or improperly used cell-site simulators or related devices to gather evidence against him, even if true, does not create a “strong inference” that he is ‘actually innocent in fact of the acts underlying the charges of which he was convicted.’” Brinkley v. State, 2024 Del. LEXIS 15 (Jan. 10, 2024).
The government’s pre-Carpenter (2018) obtaining CSLI in 2013 was obtained in good faith and would not be suppressed. [It’s also fairly obvious there was a standing issue, but it wasn’t necessary to talk about it.] United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 660 (4th Cir. Jan. 10, 2024).*
There was probable cause for the tracking warrant put on defendant’s vehicle. The information to place it wasn’t stale because he was involved in ongoing drug distribution. United States v. Heath, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4520 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2024).*
Police touching defendant’s car when the police looked in it and saw a gun wasn’t a trespass under Jones, and then they forced their way in. Jones involved installing a tracking device on the car. This is not a “ringing endorsement” of what happened there, but the court’s not suppressing because the contact with the car was incidental and didn’t involve a trespass. United States v. Gorham, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4953 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2024):
An anonymous tip that a man had a gun wasn’t reasonable suspicion. There was no report of any crime being committed at the time. State v. McCall, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 27 (La. App. 2 Cir. Jan. 10, 2024).
Defendant challenges his stop on pretext grounds. The credibility questions are all resolved in favor of the officer, and the challenge is denied. United States v. Boykins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4377 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 9, 2024).*
Seeing and smelling marijuana on a man on the street was probable cause for his stop and search. United States v. Stepney, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4459 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 9, 2024).*
The court seeks supplemental briefing on this alleged Franks violation. United States v. Hazelett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4508 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 9, 2024).*
Defendant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping of a woman from her apartment complex to go to her ATM machine. Police got cell tower dumps for the nearest towers to the occurrence at the specific times to locate cell phones potentially involved at her apartment and the ATM. That narrowed the phone down to defendant. The court finds “cell tower dumps” constitutional under Carpenter. The affidavits and warrants showed probable cause and particularity. Hudson v. State, 2024 Del. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 9, 2024).
The state post-conviction court decided the ineffective assistance of counsel on the merits of the search as well. That was preclusive of federal habeas because it was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Askew v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3316 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2024)* (Stone not even cited.)
Defendant’s encounter with the officer here was voluntary and not a seizure. Even the officer’s getting into defendant’s bag was limited and by consent. The R&R is rejected, and the motion to suppress should be denied. United States v. Jumping Eagle, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3613 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2024),* rejecting 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232352 (D.S.D. Nov. 21, 2023).*
Plaintiff, apparently while in the United States, had his property in Austria searched by Austrian authorities with an Austrian search warrant. [Aside from what jurisdiction is there here?,] The “act of state” doctrine prohibits a U.S. court from questioning the acts of another country enforcing their own law. Dvoinik v. Philipp, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 583 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2024).
Defendant was stopped for 15 over. The officer saw a liquor bottle at the driver’s feet and marijuana shake in his lap. The driver admitted drinking in the car. That was probable cause for the search. State v. Anderson, 2024-Ohio-37, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 50 (9th Dist. Jan. 8, 2024).*
The omissions from the affidavit for warrant are not material to the probable cause determination. United States v. Dua, 511, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2676 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2024).*
"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.
