The parole search of defendant’s place was still valid even though he was arrested outside. State v. Robinson, 2025-Ohio-2216 (9th Dist. June 25, 2025).
2255 petitioner doesn’t show counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress because a suppression motion wouldn’t be granted. Wilson v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119486 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2025).*
The underlying factual dispute on the use of force means qualified immunity isn’t appealable. Calliste v. Lor, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15546 (4th Cir. June 24, 2025).*
The delay in getting to search defendant’s cell phone for child pornography was not unreasonable just because it was delayed. United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15624 (8th Cir. June 25, 2025).*
“[T]he trial court was entitled to find that the questioning and free-air dog sniff were done concurrently with other tasks related to the mission of the traffic stop and therefore did not impermissibly prolong the stop.” Avant v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 278 (June 25, 2025).
Defendant parolee was already violating terms of parole for drugs when the PO got information from a lady friend. “Although the caller did not provide her name, this tip had indicia of reliability given that the tipster identified herself as Dennis’s girlfriend and knew his birthday and the name of his parole officer.” That was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. United States v. Dennis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15658 (2d Cir. June 25, 2025).*
2254 petitioner fails in his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging admissibility of a search warrant seeking defendant’s DNA. It was found below to be a strategic decision to not call further attention to it. Messenger v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119539 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2025).*
If the drug dog’s nose touching the vehicle was a trespass, the dog had effectively alerted by then and there was probable cause. State v. Fitzpatrick, 2025 Ida. App. LEXIS 29 (June 25, 2025).*
Plaintiff was at the wrong place at the wrong time of a threatened robbery. He was taken from his car at gunpoint and an officer held him down with a knee to the neck nearly asphyxiating him. While no case is exactly in point, the court finds it clearly established anyway. He had no weapon, he posed no threat justifying that kind of force. Shepard v. Sheriff of Wakulla Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15689 (11th Cir. June 25, 2025):
Posted inExcessive force, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on CA11: Knee on the neck of nonresisting suspect [who happened to be innocent] was excessive
“Maybe thirteen officers were not needed. Maybe the officers did not need to carry and display rifles. Maybe fewer vehicles could have been used to block Defendant’s vehicle. Maybe officers did not have to place Defendant in handcuffs because their weapons were pointed at him and were not holstered until his vehicle was cleared. The Court declines to indulge in unrealistic second-guessing here.” United States v. Chavez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120656 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2025).*
Officers putting in an affidavit that other charges were pending against the target was accurate as far as they knew, although it turned out that those charges had been dismissed. No Franks violation. United States v. Gamon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120092 (M.D. Pa. June 25, 2025).*
“Given the Court is under no obligation to review objections that are merely reiterations of arguments already presented to and reviewed by the Magistrate Judge, defendant’s objection here is OVERRULED.” United States v. Partin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120701 (E.D. Tenn. June 25, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Waiver, Warrant execution|Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Court won’t “second guess” 13 officers participating in vehicle stop and search
The state requiring the taking of some blood from newborn infants for testing and keeping it did not constitute a seizure because plaintiffs proved no property interest. Parental consent is required for any later use. Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15685 (6th Cir. June 25, 2025), prior appeal 927 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2019), reversing 684 F. Supp. 3d 637 (E.D. Mich. 2023).
All things considered, defendant’s post prison release GPS requirement was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Streed, 2025 Mass. App. LEXIS 54 (June 26, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. Nothing is shown to be misleading nor material. United States v. McGuire, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120946 (D. Haw. June 25, 2025).*
The motion to suppress is untimely and on the eve of trial. Denied. United States v. Glenn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120690 (E.D. Tenn. June 25, 2025).*
The apartment building’s parking lot was not part of the curtilage. United States v. Isaac, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120584 (D. Kan. June 24, 2025).
Defendant was wanted on a PV warrant. A warrant task force located a place he might be and staked it out. They saw him go in, and they came to the door and found him. The protective sweep thereafter was reasonable. That led to a valid warrant. State v. Robinson, 2025-Ohio-2216 (9th Dist. June 25, 2025).*
The stop was reasonable because of a traffic offense, but officers also previously developed reasonable suspicion to believe the vehicle was involved in drug trafficking. United States v. Reiman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119700 (D. Neb. May 5, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress that would never have succeeded. Wilson v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119486 (W.D. Ky. June 24, 2025).*
Defendant was parked at an intersection in the Bronx and was consuming marijuana in the car on the street, a state offense. The officer had the authority to conduct a search of the car even though he was likely only going to issue a citation, until he found a firearm, that is. United States v. Clarke, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117813 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2025).
The officers did not use excessive force here, and the district court just didn’t believe plaintiff’s expert. “Cunningham’s expert may believe he did not resist or pose a threat to the Defendant Officers, but the body-camera footage shows otherwise. As discussed above, the videos show that Cunningham ran from the officers, would not surrender his hands after clear and continuous requests to do so, and kept his left arm underneath his body where a weapon could have been stored.” Cunningham v. Cobb Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15434 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025).*
Defendant was suspected of having a gun. After finding a diaper on his person, the police concluded that’s where the gun was, and they were right. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the diaper, and, even if there was, there was exigency. People v. Polanco, 2025 NY Slip Op 50996(U), 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5630 (Bronx Co. Apr. 28, 2025).*
Summarized here in one paragraph (all that’s needed) the affidavit for warrant showed a substantial basis for finding probable cause. United States v. Taslakian, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118417 (D. Mass. June 23, 2025).*
Using BitTorrent to access defendant’s open child pornography files peer-to-peer on his computer was not a digital trespass and did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Ewing, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15437 (11th Cir. June 23, 2025). (DoJ press release here)
How defendant’s cell phone records and CSLI were obtained in 2012 complied with the law at the time, so the good faith exception applies. Wilson v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 144 (June 24, 2025).*
While investigating the traffic stop the officer called for backup with a drug dog. The stop was not unreasonably extended to perform the dog sniff, and there was [barely] reasonable suspicion that some crime was going to occur. McGhee v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4331 (Tex. App. – Dallas June 23, 2025).*
The inventory of defendant’s car was reasonable because he was a drunk driver and the car had to be towed, not just because he was on a gang watch list. United States v. Jim, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118818 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2025).*
Defendant had standing to contest a search of this cell phone. While he didn’t attach an affidavit, the motion and other papers say it’s his, as does the consent form. Nothing suggests it’s not. The police got a warrant out of an abundance of caution, and it was based on probable cause. “Finally, Torres’s argument pertaining to the cellphone’s location data is unpersuasive as well. He states that the warrant does not explain how its location pertains to the illegal possession charges. The warrant, however, explains that ‘the evidence on a device can also indicate who has used or controlled the device. This ‘user attribution’ evidence is analogous to the search for ‘indicia of occupancy’ while executing a search warrant at a residence.’ (Docket No. 91-7 at p. 11.) So, the warrant does explain why the cellphone’s location is relevant.” United States v. Torres-Díaz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857 (D.P.R. June 20, 2025).
“Defendant argues that constitutional law, Michigan law, and federal law require that a warrant be properly recorded, and that failure to do so warrants suppression of the evidence in this case. The reason this argument is wrong is because the Fourth Amendment itself does not require that a warrant be recorded after its execution, other federal law requirements do not apply to a state-issued warrant executed by state officers, and state law requirements are irrelevant in determining what evidence is admissible in federal criminal proceedings.” United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117882 (E.D. Mich. June 20, 2025).*
Defendant’s claim the search warrant materials were all created after the search fails in his Franks challenge. United States v. Bowman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15312 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025).*
On being arrested, defendant removed his fanny pack and handed it to another. It was still subject to search incident. State v. Scullark, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 74 (June 20, 2025):
It appears to this USMJ that the government is judge shopping. After denial of a warrant request, the government reapplied which was first assigned to another USMJ who transferred it here. Rejected again for the same reason. Defect not cured. In re Sealed Search Warrant Application, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117345 (S.D. Tex. June 20, 2025).
Probable cause to arrest satisfied Rodriguez. Also, defendant didn’t have standing as a passenger. United States v. Clarke, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117813 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2025).*
Omission of the CI’s criminal history which didn’t include dishonesty wasn’t enough for a Franks violation when compared to the other facts. Also, no materiality. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117531 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2025).*
In a public place, the officer could ask defendant to empty his pockets rather than frisk him. Drugs then came in plain view. Osborne v. Commonwealth, 2025 Ky. LEXIS 33 (June 20, 2025).*
The state couldn’t rely on the community caretaking function exception on appeal where it didn’t develop the record for it below. State v. Young, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4196 (Tex. App. – San Antonio June 18, 2025).
Defendant can’t make a challenge to the search warrant he didn’t put in the record. Feagins v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4285 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth June 19, 2025).*
The officers clearly had probable cause to arrest defendant for bank robberies. United States v. Spratt, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15194 (8th Cir. June 20, 2025).*
There was a fact question for trial on whether arresting plaintiff was reasonable. District court’s denial of qualified immunity denied. Willis v. Mills, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15196 (8th Cir. June 20, 2025).*
“That said, specificity is ‘relative,’ and a warrant ‘need not be more specific than knowledge allows.’ United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, law enforcement is required to particularize a warrant only to the extent it is reasonably able to do so based on the facts it knows at the time it obtains the warrant. See id. Officers’ knowledge about the evidence they are looking for and where it may be found on a cell phone is thus significant in determining whether a warrant is sufficiently particularized. See id.; see also Socha, 107 F.4th at 709-10.” United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116354 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2025).
2254 petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his search and seizure claim, and the state court’s holding he didn’t timely file and would have lost anyway was his Stone opportunity. Flook v. Haynes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116709 (E.D. Wash. June 18, 2025).*
The officers’ use of nondeadly force against an apparent mentally ill plaintiff who was flailing and resisting arrest was reasonable under established precedent. Helms v. Boyd Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15112 (6th Cir. June 17, 2025).*
Defendant shows no connection to the package he seeks to suppress. “None of the facts attested to in Sherman’s affidavit connect the package to him. It was not addressed to him, and the address to which it was sent was associated with a Rebeca Ruiz, not Edmundo Ruiz, Jr. The return address also did not bear his name, and it was associated with several commercial properties, not Edmundo Ruiz, Jr.” United States v. Ruiz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116091 (N.D. Ohio June 18, 2025).*
Failure to swear an oath or affirmation before the issuing judge was fatal to this warrant. He signed it but didn’t acknowledge swearing to it. “the Court of Criminal Appeals has specifically explained that ‘to convey the solemnity and critical nature of being truthful,’ Texas law requires that ‘the oath must be made ‘before’ or in the presence of another.’” Moreover, the good faith exception does not apply. State v. Hardridge, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4126 (Tex. App. – Dallas June 16, 2025).
Defendant consented to a patdown before getting in the police car for a courtesy ride. Hall v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 4677 (Fla. 5th DCA June 18, 2025).*
“Turning to Defendant’s [Franks] challenge, he does not identify any statement by any affiant that is purportedly false, misleading, or made with reckless disregard for the truth. … This alone constitutes reason enough to deny his request for a Franks hearing.” United States v. Dewberry, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116473 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t show how the challenged statement is false in context. Franks hearing denied. United States v. Chattams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116479 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2025).*
Reason: South Carolina County Ends Its Civil Forfeiture Blitz After 20 Years by Rob Johnson & Daryl James (“Operation Rolling Thunder was an unconstitutional search-and-seizure machine that subjected thousands of innocent people to pretextual, warrantless searches. Public records show that officers routinely pulled over vehicles on the flimsiest of excuses and then manufactured probable cause to check under seats, open trunks, and unzip suitcases. During one encounter that led to a federal complaint, officers stopped a charter bus from Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina, and treated every student on board like a criminal. Yet when the police rummaged through the luggage bay, they found nothing illegal—just travel supplies and a box of donuts.”)
Posted inForfeiture|Comments Off on Reason: South Carolina County Ends Its Civil Forfeiture Blitz After 20 Years
Defendant was charged with murder and ultimately arrested in Belize and deported. His Belize cell phone was valid under their law, and he doesn’t show a joint venture in the phone search. State v. Scott, 319 Neb. 153 (June 13, 2025).
The motion to suppress was untimely. Besides, the defendant lacked standing, and the automobile exception made it reasonable. United States v. Floyd, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14737 (8th Cir. June 16, 2025).*
Touching then crossing the white line justified this traffic stop. “Furthermore, as set forth above, the commission of even a de minimis traffic violation, of which a marked lanes violation qualifies, provides probable cause to stop a vehicle.” State v. Tucker, 2025-Ohio-2108 (4th Dist. June 6, 2025).*
An Instagram video of men playing with guns led to this stop-and-frisk. The officers could frisk the men for weapons because their pockets were bulging too. Drugs were found in a valid plain feel. United States v. Collins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114026 (D.N.J. June 16, 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.
