Confiscation or interference with prison legal mail is a First and Fourteenth Amendment claim, not Fourth. Chenevert v. Kanode, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171627 (W.D. Va. Sep. 26, 2023).
There was reasonable suspicion for a frisk of the driver of a car with three gang members inside in contested territory where the gang was known to be violent and one had a ghost gun on him. People v. Esparza, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 741 (4th Dist. Aug. 28, 2023).*
“To the extent Buck seeks relief from this Court based on claims of a Fourth Amendment violation and ineffective assistance of counsel, his bald and conclusory assertions are insufficient to warrant relief.” United States v. Buck, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171456 (N.D. Miss. Sep. 26, 2023).*
Plain view: “In the case before us, the evidence showed that it was immediately apparent to Officer Yanez, i.e., he had probable cause to believe, that the white pills in the blue-tinted, knotted baggie were illegal narcotics based on his narcotics training and over 100 narcotics arrest during his six-year career. He specifically testified: ‘From my experience, the way I have seen narcotics packaged, I believe[d] it to be narcotics.’” People v. Mallett, 2023 IL App (1st) 220920 (Sep. 26, 2023).*
“Ultimately, Officer Roach observed specific behavior that, taken together, gave him a particularized and objective basis to suspect that criminal activity was afoot. Viewing those collective observations in light of Officer Roach’s professional experience—as we must—it was reasonable for Officer Roach to seize the occupants of the vehicle for a short time longer to conduct the minimally intrusive investigatory dog sniff. Thus, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—provided reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop to conduct the dog sniff.” Canonge v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 267 (Sep. 25, 2023).*
“Further, the law that the disproportionate use of force against a non-resisting suspect is excessive was clearly established by the time of Plaintiff’s arrest in April 2019.” Neira v. Gualtieri, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171162 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s claim he was off parole when this parole search occurred at least survives a motion to dismiss. Aurecchione v. Falco, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171131 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2023).
Defendant’s suppression motion against his residential search warrants was based on results of a wiretap. Since the wiretap was valid, the house warrant was, too. United States v. Glenn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170767 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 22, 2023).*
The court doesn’t have to decide defendant’s standing to challenge the search of this UPS package because there was reasonable suspicion on the totality to pull it out of the distribution chain based on the shipping service purchased, the name not matching the address, and the phone number on the package matching nobody marked on it. United States v. Ali-White, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170848 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 25, 2023).*
The warrant was used to search a trailer based on a warrant for the truck, and the warrant was clearly deficient for the trailer. “This case involves a ‘glaring deficiency,’ id., rather than a ‘virtually unnoticeable’ omission. Watson, 498 F.3d at 432; see also Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 (‘[A] warrant may be so facially deficient–i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized–that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.’). Because any reasonable officer that read the warrant would have known that a search of the tractor trailer was not authorized, the good-faith exception cannot apply.” United States v. Bourgoin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171119 (D. Me. Sep. 26, 2023):
Posted inAutomobile exception, Good faith exception, Scope of search|Comments Off on D.Me.: “The Government appears to argue that close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and warrantless searches so long as the police work was not hallmarked by nefarious intent.”
A restated Fourth Amendment claim doesn’t satisfy the standard for a successor 2254 petition. Hardy v. Neal, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25343 (7th Cir. Sep. 25, 2023).
Plaintiff fails in his claim the county routinely violates the Fourth Amendment in searches. Burley v. Sumner Cty. 18th Judicial Drug Task Force, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25287 (6th Cir. Sep. 22, 2023).*
The encounter with defendants outside a liquor store near a university was to see if they were of age when they bought liquor. “Here, the agents identified observable facts that, viewed through their experience and training, provided the basis for reasonable suspicion to approach Escobedo and Robinette and request identification. The agents noted a ‘youthful appearance,’ but also considered the equally youthful-looking companions, the carry-out’s reputation for underage sales, and the fact it was a game day, with tailgating all around the campus.” State v. Escobedo, 2023-Ohio-3410 (6th Dist. Sep. 22, 2023).*
License plate reading “SOVEREIGN CITIZEN USC ART. SEC. 242.” was reasonable suspicion for a stop. He admitted he had a gun and the computer check showed he was a convicted felon. United States v. Craft, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170483 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2023).
Defendant’s traffic stop was admittedly justified. The search incident of his person when warrants were found for him was justified. United States v. Brunson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25227 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 2023).*
Police searched defendant’s business for evidence of vehicle titles. They seized his computer and he threatened the officers because it was allegedly unjustified, and the threat led to a separate case. Counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the seizure of the computer. A separate warrant would have been required to search it, but the seizure was lawful. Therefore, not ineffective assistance of counsel. Plato v. State, 2023 Ind. App. LEXIS 265 (Sep. 25, 2023).*
Defendant’s premises had been under surveillance for days before the entry and protective sweep. There was no justification for the protective sweep because there was no reason to believe anyone else was there. United States v. Dacruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170158 (D.R.I. Sep. 25, 2023).
“Under these circumstances, courts have refused to suppress evidence discovered after the defendant’s unlawful act. … Here, the police had reasonable suspicion for Ross’s initial stop, and Ross responded by running and shooting at the officers. As such, law enforcement had probable cause to arrest him. See, e.g., Husbands ex rel. Forde v. City of New York, 335 F. App’x 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that where officer heard shots and saw defendant standing alone in the direction from which the shots were fired, officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had fired the shots). [¶] Ross’s arrest was supported by probable cause, and defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm recovered at the scene of his arrest should be denied.” United States v. Ross, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169579 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168582 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2023).*
Defendant’s encounter with the police at the Trailways Bus station in Omaha was consensual. He was approached but had to know he could refuse to talk to the police. United States v. Whitfield, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169717 (D. Neb. Sep. 22, 2023).*
There’s no reasonable expectation of privacy or standing in someone else’s cell phone. State v. Hunt, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 775 (Sep. 19, 2023).*
Defendant was mistaken that GX48 for trial was the product of a search warrant. It wasn’t. United States v. Giambro, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168899 (D. Me. Sep. 22, 2023).*
A jury could conclude that the officer’s unprovoked shoving of plaintiff during the taking of his cell phone was excessive force. Ohome v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168891 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 22, 2023).*
Pre-Carpenter CSLI was obtained in good faith. Mack v. Collado, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169610 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 2023).*
“A hypothetically reasonable officer in Brown’s situation would have probable cause to believe that Kohler posed a threat of serious physical harm to himself and to the other officers when he used deadly force. That officer could reasonably conclude that Kohler was threatening them with a weapon — his car. After backing out of the parking space and then turning the automobile to face the exit, Kohler saw the two officers positioned in front him. Brown’s weapon was drawn. The officers shouted for Kohler to stop while banging on his car window. Nevertheless, Kohler drove forward. At that point, an officer would have probable cause to conclude that Kohler and his car posed a threat of serious bodily injury to the officers.” Kohler v. Brown, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169364 (W.D. Va. Sep. 22, 2023).*
“Plaintiff argues that the Officers used excessive force while arresting Lunneen and that they were grossly negligent for failing to provide medical care to Lunneen. The district court found that qualified immunity shielded many of the Officers’ interactions with Lunneen, including their use of a taser and pepper spray when attempting to get Lunneen on the ground. The district court denied summary judgment, however, on two aspects of the arrest: the Officers’ use of force once they had Lunneen on the ground but before they handcuffed him, and Wyss’s use of force after Lunneen was handcuffed. We lack jurisdiction to consider the Officers’ evidentiary arguments at this stage. For those arguments properly before us, we AFFIRM.” Lunneen v. Vill. of Berrien Springs, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25186 (6th Cir. Sep. 21, 2023).*
Defense counsel at trial was ineffective for not raising a suppression issue that would likely have prevailed and taken defendant from a life sentence down to a 20 year MM. United States v. Dasinger, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168974 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 22, 2023).*
Some of the information from the CI didn’t show time, but the totality of information showed probable cause. United States v. Whitlow, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169156 (M.D. Ala. Sep. 22, 2023).*
2254 petitioner raised his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and lost, and he can’t relitigate in federal court. Roybal v. Schnell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168490 (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2023).*
Not unreasonable to strip search an inmate on return to jail who went out for having a catheter put in. Maxwell v. Almanza, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25165 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 2023).*
Defendant’s frisk was unjustified. There was no reasonable suspicion he was armed. People v. Lozano, 2023 Ill. LEXIS 463 (Sep. 21, 2023).*
Defendant used his cell phone to arrange drug deals, and a search warrant was sought for the phone. “Though not expressly stated in the warrant application, this information is sufficient to conclude that the phone would contain the names and contact information for coconspirators, which is important investigatory information.” United States v. Parker, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168580 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2023).*
The affidavit for warrant showed probable cause for search of defendant’s Apartment No. 1 of a three story building. United States v. Soto-Lara, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169109 (D. Mass. Sep. 22, 2023).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IL: Frisk unjustified without showing risk def was armed
The court does not credit the officer’s claim that defendant was excessively nervous to the point of stuttering during the stop in the officer’s effort to show reasonable suspicion. It appears to the court from the video to be no more than anyone confronted by the police. In addition, defendant did not impliedly consent to the search. United States v. Raniewicz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168994 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 22, 2023).
2254 petitioner tried to finesse around a Stone bar, by arguing it as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel argued the theory wrong. “Petitioner himself has not, until now, advanced this theory of how his Franks request was made but not honored [in the state court]. Even accepting Petitioner’s version of the facts as true, the Court again cannot conclude that he was denied a full and fair hearing on his Fourth Amendment claim.” Stallings v. Cromwell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168077 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 21, 2023).*
“Defendant gave consent in a public parking lot. … He never objected to the search and, in fact, asked officers to retrieve his wallet from inside the vehicle. … The Court thus finds that the preponderance of evidence shows Defendant’s consent was voluntary and recommends denial of his motion to suppress.” United States v. Stewart, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168476 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 29, 2023).*
Posted inDigital privacy, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on techdirt: CBP Tells Senator Ron Wyden It Will Stop Buying Location Data From Third Parties
Seizure of plaintiff’s cell phone by search warrant off his person in a Hardee’s drive thru wasn’t outrageous governmental conduct justifying return of the phone under Rule 41(g). Also, the equitable claim that the phone is necessary for business purposes doesn’t help him because he admits the phone was backed up five days before and it can be downloaded. [I advise clients get another phone for the same number and download from the cloud because it’s way easier and cheaper than litigating a Rule 41(g) return on the front end.] Lindell v. United States, 22-3510 (8th Cir. Sept. 22, 2023):
The MMA doesn’t permit driving while smoking MMJ. The smell of burnt MJ coming from defendant’s car was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Commonwealth v. Sloan, 2023 PA Super 173 (Sep. 21, 2023).*
Plaintiff was in court shortly after arrest, and it was obvious he was being bailed out. By the time he got back to jail for processing, he was subjected to a visual strip search and then his release was delayed for two hours. The latter not a Fourth Amendment claim. The former fails on qualified immunity. Murphy v. Hughson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25020 (2d Cir. Sep. 21, 2023).*
Qualified immunity: Plaintiff doesn’t identify a case where similar actions were found to have been a Fourth Amendment violation. His case was thus properly dismissed. Andrich v. Kostas, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25002 (9th Cir. Sep. 21, 2023).*
When the officer is attempting to pull over a car for a traffic offense, being slow to stop and furtive movements in the car become reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Moore v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 7343 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Sep. 21, 2023).
Due to defendant’s emails and social media, “The Court finds that officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Wright was engaged in criminal activity-specifically, ex-felon-failure-to-register and felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm-sufficient for them to stop the vehicle in which he was riding to investigate and identify him.” United States v. Wright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167407 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2023).*
Lack of proof of insurance was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. United States v. Diaz-Sanchez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167640 (D. Or. Sep. 19, 2023).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on TX2: Slow to pull over and furtive movements is RS
15-20 men standing around gambling did not justify a frisk for weapons. State v. Parrish, 2023-Ohio-3356, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 3266 (8th Dist. Sep. 21, 2023).
The search issue raised after trial and waived pretrial does not show manifest injustice. By all appearances, it would not have been an illegal search. Commonwealth v. Bastos, 2023 Mass. App. LEXIS 135 (Sep. 20, 2023).*
The district court rejects the testimony of defendant’s standing witness: “The undersigned notes that Mr. Kuany has a history of providing false information to law enforcement. He was convicted of false reporting to the police in 2019 and he is also a convicted felon. It is not surprising to the Court that Mr. Kuany’s record of dishonesty carried itself into his testimony during the evidentiary hearing.” United States v. Gatkuoth, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167409 (D. Neb. Aug. 14, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167797 (D. Neb. Sep. 19, 2023).*
Posted inStanding, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on OH8: Street gambling doesn’t justify frisk for weapons
"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.
