Giving a substantial amount of cash to a courier to take it from Arizona to Maryland doesn’t create standing. United States v. $549,860.00 in United States Currency, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131436 (S.D. Ill. July 10, 2025).
Defendant’s place was raided in an anticipatory warrant and he first said that both cell phones there were his. Later, he said it was the shock of the arrest and only the iPhone was his. This became abandonment of the other phone. United States v. Morgan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17218 (11th Cir. July 11, 2025).*
The use of deadly force here was apparently justified by the video, and it all happened in seconds. The officers violated no constitutional right, so the question of whether it was clearly established doesn’t have to be decided. Heid v. Rutkoski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17090 (11th Cir. July 10, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s claim that surveillance of him was “illegal,” without more doesn’t state a claim. Jabr v. Dep’t of Taxation, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132236 (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2025).*
Reasonable suspicion is required for a prison visitor’s strip search. Out of circuit authority can be considered in whether the law is clearly established. Here it essentially was. Gilmore v. Ga. Dept. of Corr., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17209 (11th Cir. July 11, 2025), panel opinion Gilmore v. Ga. Dept. of Corr., 111 F.4th 1118 (11th Cir. 2024):
Posted inPrison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Strip search|Comments Off on CA11: RS required for a prison visitor’s strip search; out of circuit authority can be considered in whether the law is clearly established
Posted inRacial profiling|Comments Off on Mediate: Trump’s Border Czar Sparks Firestorm of Anger By Telling Fox News ICE Can Detain Based on ‘Physical Appearance’
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a cell phone in prison. United States v. Brandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025).
This line in defendant’s PSR leads to denial of his motion to shorten supervised release. “Fausnaught confronted a source of information that led to the 1995 search warrant, calling him a ‘snitch’, remarking that ‘snitches get stitches,’ and threatening to have the source killed.” United States v. Fausnaught, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130416 (M.D. Pa. July 9, 2025).*
The trial court is to compare the credibility of the officer’s testimony against the video which did not happen here. State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-2427 (5th Dist. July 8, 2025).*
The fact the officer could have attempted to resolve the discrepancy of the VIN not matching the license plate a different way doesn’t mean the officer acted unreasonably, quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-87 (1985) (“[T]he question is not simply whether some other alternative was available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue it”). United States v. Barrow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16896 (5th Cir. July 9, 2025).*
Filing a search warrant and application before it is served isn’t a constitutional requirement. [And even if it was, where’s the prejudice?] United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130063 (W.D. Wis. July 8, 2025):
On de novo review, the officers didn’t slow walk the traffic citation to get more time to do the dog sniff. State v. Cox, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 567 (July 2, 2025)*:
Reclaim The Net: How Digital Convenience Becomes a Government Backdoor by Christina Maas (“The Supreme Court’s silence keeps 20th-century privacy rules firmly in place while 21st-century surveillance marches on.”). Well, to be frank, the third-party doctrine isn’t going anywhere as to something like crypto. It’s essentially just a bank record under Smith v. Maryland. And “rejects” is a strong word. Cert denial is “declined for now, maybe forever.” From the article:
Social media videos of a target of the warrant shooting guns viewed before obtaining the warrant justified a no-knock warrant. Davenport v. City of Little Rock, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16540 (8th Cir. July 7, 2025).
Plaintiff’s various claims, including a Fourth Amendment claim, were barred by limitations. Topolski v. Wash. State Dep’t of Licensing, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128433 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2025).*
Post-conviction petitioner shows no grounds on which his Instagram messages should have been suppressed. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel. Turcios v. State, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 311 (July 7, 2025).*
This motion to suppress filed 2½ years after sentencing was waived by the guilty plea, isn’t timely, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. Eddington v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128448 (S.D. Ill. July 7, 2025).*
Adoption of his suppression motion brief by reference without briefing it was waiver. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with his girlfriend in the presence of a CI. State v. Davis, 2025-Ohio-2382, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2327 (12th Dist. July 7, 2025).
Defendant was asleep in his truck, and there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime to order him out of it. United States v. Richie, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127757 (N.D.W. Va. July 7, 2025).*
The pistol seen in plain view during defendant’s stop was justification for the automobile exception. United States v. Cole, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127782 (E.D. Okla. July 7, 2025).*
Defendant gets no CoA on his Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [Unsaid: He can’t possibly prevail.] United States v. Campbell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16567 (4th Cir. July 7, 2025).*
The trial court erred in finding no standing when the state didn’t even raise it. State v. Reynolds, 2025-Ohio-2347, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2332 (5th Dist. July 2, 2025).
During the stop, the driver could be ordered out of the vehicle. The patdown is a different matter. No showing was made by the government that it was based on reasonable suspicion, but there was a dog sniff based on the smell of marijuana, so all this is inevitable. United States v. Ríos-Sánchez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127498 (D.P.R. July 3, 2025).*
The appellate complaint was that the probable cause issue wasn’t dealt with at the suppression hearing, but it was reopened and it was. United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16514 (6th Cir. July 2, 2025).*
Without deciding the merits of defendant’s nexus claim, there was enough here for the good faith exception to apply. United States v. Cater, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16494 (6th Cir. July 3, 2025).*
The Heck bar is an affirmative defense that has to be pled by defendants under F.R.C.P. 8(c). Megna v. Musial, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127980 (E.D. Wis. July 7, 2025).
Defendant’s driving justified his stop. State v. Craven, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1294 (July 7, 2025).*
Under Franks, “Such a substantial preliminary showing requires more than mere allegations of defects in a warrant. A defendant must produce evidence of the complained-of defects by offering affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses. If the defendant cannot produce such evidence, he must explain why he cannot do so.” He fails. In addition, while the probable cause is thin, it’s not nonexistent, and the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Moa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126498 (D. Utah July 2, 2025).*
Administrative summonses for IP subscriber information was not overbroad based on NCMEC reports. That led to search warrants. United States v. Snell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128179 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2025).*
Defendant’s driveway was not curtilage, so his stop and ultimate search of the car was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Moses, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16484 (3d Cir. July 3, 2025).
De minimis force, even grabbing or choking that leaves only minor injuries, is not excessive force. Glenn v. Britt, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16402 (11th Cir. July 3, 2025).*
There was a fair probability evidence would be found on defendant’s phone concerning an infant death about two weeks earlier. Therefore, the warrant was not stale. State v. White, 2025 S.C. App. LEXIS 42 (July 2, 2025).*
The officer’s statement that defendant had to give a breath sample wasn’t material. “Given that Allen had no constitutional right to refuse the breathalyzer test, the validity of his consent was legally immaterial for purposes of his suppression motion.” State v. Allen, 2025-Ohio-2353 (2d Dist. July 3, 2025).*
Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply. State v. Abonza, 2025 UT App 101, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 102 (July 3, 2025).
Based on collective knowledge, there was probable cause for defendant’s stop. Morris v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4773 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth July 3, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t have standing to challenge this car search, and the motion to reconsider is denied. United States v. Gaines, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126894 (N.D. Ohio June 24, 2025).*
The legality of the warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone while in his halfway house doesn’t have to be decided because there was a subsequent warrant for it. United States v. Weste, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16447 (5th Cir. July 3, 2025).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on UT: Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply
Defendant’s single location information entered into a phone app that was used to set up a robbery was basic third-party information not protected by Carpenter. State v. Diaw, 2025-Ohio-2323 (July 2, 2025):
[While it was thin,] The officer had reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff, including “react[ing] defensively when asked for consent to search the Sentra by making a facial expression, flailing his arms to the side, and offering unprompted explanations as to what he was doing.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126662 (E.D. Ark. July 3, 2025)*:
The government admits that the warrant lacked particularity, but they sought to use the good faith exception to sustain a limited search. The problem there is that the person who sought the warrant didn’t search it, and he instructed the searcher to search the entire phone. Therefore, the good faith exception did not apply to the particularity claim. The officer’s candid motive to get a second search warrant to cure the first doesn’t satisfy the attenuation doctrine, and the motion to suppress should be granted. United States v. Gross, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126677 (N.D. Iowa July 3, 2025) (R&R). The court surveys the cases and concludes:
Posted inAttenuation, Particularity|Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine
A person accused has a statutory right of access to search warrant affidavits in his own case. “The applicable provisions state only that the documents ‘shall be made available’ to defendants ‘when requested,’ without specifying to whom the request should be directed.” State v. Haynes, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 157 (July 3, 2025).
“A police officer armed with probable cause to believe a home contains evidence of a serious crime that might otherwise be destroyed may lawfully secure the home and restrict entry while waiting for an assisting officer to diligently procure a search warrant.” There was exigency and defendant also consented to it all. State v. Arredondo, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 158 (July 3, 2025).*
Disagreeing with a state visibility of the license plate number in federal cases, the state court clarifies that the totality of circumstances applies to the visibility requirement which can be different things at different times and conditions. Whether the state name is clearly visible isn’t a statutory requirement. Denial of motion to suppress reversed, and the case is remanded. State v. Beck, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 155 (July 3, 2025).*
In this 2254, petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn’t object that the search warrant was not personally served on him wasn’t a constitutional requirement. Also barred by Stone. Witkowski v. Bennett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126262 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2025).
Defendant’s 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel is denied for failing to show that a motion to suppress would have been granted or the outcome different. United States v. Aside, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125901 (D. Nev. July 2, 2025).*
The state parole search of defendant’s cell phone was justified by reasonable suspicion under special needs. United States v. Watson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125812 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2025).*
Defendant was given the chance to elaborate in opposition to the government’s claim of abandonment, but he remained silent. Abandonment found. United States v. Pérez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126505 (D.P.R. June 30, 2025).*
The video of execution of the search warrant was sufficiently authenticated to be admissible at trial despite coming in through a witness other than the one who took it. United States v. Reyes-Rosario, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16316 (1st Cir. June 5, 2025).
The probable cause for defendant’s arrest included probable cause to search his backpack too. United States v. Brito, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126351 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2025).*
A private search of defendant’s cell phone resulted in four search warrants, all with probable cause. United States v. Lawson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126221 (E.D. Mich. July 2, 2025),*
When defendant doesn’t dispute material facts of the stop, a hearing isn’t required. Based on the video and the statements of witnesses, there was probable cause for his arrest. Then the vehicle search was proper as a search incident. United States v. Morfin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125265 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 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.
