CA7: Skeletal 4A claim doesn’t support relief

A caution about pleading in a § 1983 Fourth Amendment case: Plaintiff loses because of his skeletal claims in the complaint. “We express no opinion on whether the officers needed to handcuff Petersen, transport him in a police vehicle to a police station, and hand him over to an interview team to complete their stated mission of ascertaining Petersen’s identity, determining whether Petersen had a firearm, and investigating the situation without interference. See United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004, 1016-17 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘We have previously found that using handcuffs, placing suspects in police cars, drawing weapons, and other measures of force more traditionally associated with arrests may be proper during an investigatory detention, depending on the circumstances …. [But] in some situations, maintaining the status quo while obtaining more information … might be the most reasonable action to take.’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). We also express no opinion on whether, to get Erato’s name, check if he had a gun, and investigate the scene without his interference, the officers needed to handcuff him, take his belongings, transport him in a police vehicle to a police station, and interview him. And we express no opinion on whether Petersen or Erato’s detentions morphed into full-blown arrests. In the end, it does not matter whether the record supports these conclusions because the skeletal arguments on which Plaintiffs rely are insufficient to support their Fourth Amendment claims. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991) (‘[P]erfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived ….’); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (‘A skeletal “argument,” really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim.’ (citation omitted)).” Moderson v. City of Neenah, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11281 (7th Cir. May 9, 2025).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Excessive force | Comments Off on CA7: Skeletal 4A claim doesn’t support relief

AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

In a Medicaid fraud case, the state did not show probable cause to believe evidence would be found on the cell phone of the Medicaid provider. The search warrant was also not particular for the cell phone. The warrant authorized seizure of computer media in the dentists’ office. Lookhart v. State, 2025 Alas. App. LEXIS 46 (May 9, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Cell phones, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on AK: No PC shown for cell phone search in a Medicaid fraud case

MI: Exigency for seeking cell phone consent doesn’t require actual knowledge def might destroy evidence on it

Defendant consented to seizure of his cell phone after officers learned there might be child sexual abuse material on it. A search warrant later issued. All this was reasonable. The officer doesn’t have to have evidence that defendant might delete information from the phone before seeking to secure it. People v. Evans, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 3621 (May 8, 2025).

“[T]he district court correctly determined that Officer Zavaleta’s initial detention of Darling did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Zavaleta knew that Darling was in a small group and had reason to believe that another member of that group was armed and had been brandishing the firearm. This provided a reasonable objective basis for Zavaleta to briefly detain the group.” Darling v. Zavaleta, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11264 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025).*

Defendant is charged with vehicular manslaughter. A search warrant was issued for the interior of the vehicle: “The court’s common-sense review of the validity of the search warrant is limited to whether the issuing court reasonably determined that probable cause existed for its issuance. … The sworn affidavit in support of the warrant was signed by the lead detective on the case, a 17-year veteran of the NYPD assigned to the Collision Investigation Squad. The warrant is sufficiently narrow and particular in its scope, requesting the seizure and search only of the Defendant’s vehicle involved in the crash and the interior items which are relevant to the details of Defendant’s driving and his identity as the driver. The affiant’s basis of knowledge for the information in the affidavit was derived from his own observations, experience, and investigation as well as investigation by other police officers ….” People v. Hill, 2025 NY Slip Op 25109 (Queens Co. May 6, 2025).*

Posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MI: Exigency for seeking cell phone consent doesn’t require actual knowledge def might destroy evidence on it

W.D.Wash.: Corroborated anonymous tip was enough for probation search

An anonymous tip “here predicted Dodd would engage in future criminal activity and the tipster explained how they knew this information. Bullard then investigated these claims and learned new, non-public information that corroborated many of the allegations.” This was “reasonable cause to search and arrest Dodd” for a probation violation. United States v. Dodd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89064 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2025).

Defendant’s Jan. 6th pardon doesn’t apply to is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) conviction for firearms found when his house was raided in February 2021. United States v. Costianes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89182 (D. Md. May 8, 2025).*

Defendants were convicted of a petty offense for attempting to video record in a federal courthouse. This defendant had his cell phone confiscated during the trial. “Staples also contends that confiscation of his phone during his trial violated his Fourth Amendment rights. As above, he makes no argument or showing that confiscation of his phone affected his ability to defend himself. Any Fourth Amendment violation is not an issue for appeal.” United States v. Staples, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88676 (D.N.H. May 9, 2025).*

Petitioner’s 2254 habeas fails on Stone grounds. He litigated it in state court and lost. Also, the fact he was acquitted of the traffic offense that started it all says nothing about probable cause for the stop. Brown v. New York, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88547 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2025).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: Corroborated anonymous tip was enough for probation search

FL5: Traffic stops can be based on RS, not PC

Traffic stops can be based on reasonable suspicion, not just probable cause. State v. Howard, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 3618 (Fla. 5th DCA May 9, 2025).

A light bar on a three wheel off road vehicle was reasonable suspicion for a stop. Roland v. La. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2025 La. LEXIS 712 (La. May 9, 2025).*

Ex parte applications for search warrant are explicitly recognized. Adelson v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 3620 (Fla. 1st DCA May 9, 2025).*

Walking away from a police encounter is permitted, but here the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the fact this was a notorious open air market and they’d taken drugs off of some of the participants before. On the totality there was reasonable suspicion. State v. K.B., 2025 La. LEXIS 708 (La. May 9, 2025).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on FL5: Traffic stops can be based on RS, not PC

S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge

Defendant’s Franks claim fails. The omitted allegedly exculpatory evidence either wasn’t material to the probable cause finding or wasn’t known by law enforcement at the time the warrant issued. In this circuit, the collective knowledge doctrine applies to warrantless searches, not warrants. Also, the Franks offer of proof is just conclusory. United States v. Combs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89165 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2025)*:

Continue reading
Posted in Collective knowledge, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge

W.D.Va.: Not IAC to logically choose 4A arguments

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing his desired defendant’s personal Franks issue when lack of probable cause was a better issue. He also wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that GPS tracking across state lines was unreasonable. Appellate counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing a particular search case that was clearly distinguishable. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89189 (W.D. Va. May 7, 2025). As to trial counsel:

Continue reading
Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: Not IAC to logically choose 4A arguments

E.D.Tenn.: Late discovery of a bodycam video supports reopening def’s Franks challenge

A late disclosed bodycam video support a Franks challenge, and defendant gets to reopen his suppression hearing. United States v. Price, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88965 (E.D. Tenn. May 9, 2025).

A time gap in when a confederate checked into their hotel and the key card was issued doesn’t establish sufficient falsity for a Franks challenge here. United States v. Triplett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88926 (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2025).*

“So even if everything Combs challenged as a misstatement was taken out and everything Combs says was inappropriately omitted was added in, there was still enough for probable cause of the federal offenses identified in the affidavits.” And, even if the warrants were defective as to particularity, they still were executed in good faith. United States v. Combs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89165 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2025).*

Defendant returned through JFK after a family vacation in Egypt. His cell phone was searched without probable cause or a warrant, something required by a prior case, decided two years after his search. United States v. Sultanov, 742 F. Supp. 3d 258 (E.D.N.Y. 2024). The Second Circuit hasn’t ruled yet. The child pornography found is suppressed for lack of a warrant. United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89035 (E.D.N.Y. May 9, 2025).* [No Davis good faith?]

Posted in Body cameras, Border search, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Late discovery of a bodycam video supports reopening def’s Franks challenge

W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

In this child pornography case, the warrant was narrowed by the attached affidavit. In addition, the generality of the warrant is determined by what the officers did, not what they thought. United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89056 (W.D. Pa. May 9, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Overbreadth of SW determined by what officers did, not what they thought

W.D.Wash.: Polygraph test of SO can be RS for parole search

Defendant’s showing deception on a sex offender polygraph test while on supervision was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. United States v. Dodd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89064 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: Polygraph test of SO can be RS for parole search

OH1: “reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.”

“But reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.” State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 1640 (1st Dist. May 8, 2025).

The home owner consented to a complete search, and the defendant has no sufficient connection to the premises to have standing to contest it. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87779 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2025).*

The protective sweep of the house after defendant’s arrest was reasonable because there were others potentially involved that were unaccounted for. United States v. August, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11154 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025).*

The second officer with the dog arrived and conducted the sniff, so there was no prolonging the detention. On reconsideration, defendant’s argument that the stop was prolonged on purpose is waived for failure to present it to the trial court. State v. Dean, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (Mar. 19, 2025).

Posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on OH1: “reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.”

CA11: Punching subdued arrestee showed excessive force

Punching an arrestee in the head after he was subdued overcame qualified immunity. Jones v. Ceinski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11181 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025).*

“In this case, undisputed facts support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force to arrest the plaintiff, and that no reasonable factfinder could find for the plaintiff. … Both the severity of the crime at issue and the threat to the safety of others strongly support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force in arresting the plaintiff. During the incident, it is uncontested that the plaintiff was experiencing a psychotic episode and was under the influence of narcotics. Both the severity of the crime at issue and the threat to the safety of others strongly support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force in arresting the plaintiff. During the incident, it is uncontested that the plaintiff was experiencing a psychotic episode and was under the influence of narcotics.” Sabino v. Port Auth. Police Dep’t, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87654 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025).*

The facts dispute in this case involving the shooting a man in a psychotic break deny summary judgment. Winkley v. Blackwell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11162 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025).*

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA11: Punching subdued arrestee showed excessive force

Phones, Files, and the Fourth: Border Searches and the Attorney-Client Privilege

NACDL Free Webinar for defense lawyers, 1-230 pm Eastern today.

Posted in Border search | Comments Off on Phones, Files, and the Fourth: Border Searches and the Attorney-Client Privilege

LawFare: Tracing the Origins of a ‘New American Surveillance State’

LawFare: Tracing the Origins of a ‘New American Surveillance State’ by Sarah Lamdan (“A review of Byron Tau, ‘Means of Control: How the Hidden Alliance of Tech and Government Is Creating a New American Surveillance State’ (Crown, 2024)”)

Posted in Surveillance technology, Uncategorized | Comments Off on LawFare: Tracing the Origins of a ‘New American Surveillance State’

TX: Fraudulently renting hotel room denies a REP

Fraudulently renting a hotel room means no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. And, it didn’t matter that the police didn’t learn that until later. Bluntson v. State, 2025 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (May 7, 2025).

At the oral argument on the objections to the R&R [which almost never happens] defendant challenged the lack of probable cause but without factual or legal argument, and conceded the good faith exception should apply. [The latter was enough. The rest of this opinion didn’t matter.] United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85359 (W.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).

A gun in a drug house searched with a warrant was seized in plain view. Defendant was associated with the premises and was a felon. United States v. Fistzgiles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85631 (D. Del. May 5, 2025).*

If there was probable cause to arrest for any offense, the arrest is valid even if the probable cause for the offense stated was lacking. Crump v. Lun, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85015 (D. Kan. May 5, 2025).*

Posted in Good faith exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on TX: Fraudulently renting hotel room denies a REP

Reason: Updated draft: The Two Tests of Search Law by Orin S. Kerr

Reason: Updated draft: The Two Tests of Search Law by Orin S. Kerr:

I have posted a revised draft of my forthcoming article, The Two Tests of Search Law: What is the Jones Test, and What Does That Say About Katz?, which will be published in the Washington University Law Review. You can download it here, and the abstract is below.

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Trespass | Comments Off on Reason: Updated draft: The Two Tests of Search Law by Orin S. Kerr

HPCWire: Do You Own Your Cloud Data? Third-Party Doctrine Says No

HPCWire: Do You Own Your Cloud Data? Third-Party Doctrine Says No by Alex Woodie (“Your data is yours, right? It seems like a simple question, but thanks to a little-known loophole in federal law, US regulators can access your private data without a warrant as long as it’s being stored by a third party. The so-called ‘third-party doctrine’ could be reconsidered in a case currently before the Supreme Court.”)

Cato: This SCOTUS Case Could Give the IRS Access to Your Private Data — Cato Legal Experts (“When nearly every aspect of our lives is stored and synced through digital intermediaries, the ‘third-party doctrine’ has become a gaping loophole for mass surveillance”)

Posted in Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on HPCWire: Do You Own Your Cloud Data? Third-Party Doctrine Says No

IN: Stolen vehicles in yard doesn’t support SW for their records, and no GFE

Defendant was suspected of stealing trailers, and they were seen at his house. This did not justify a search warrant for documents in his house. In addition, the good faith exception did not apply. Thomas v. State, 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 145 (May 5, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on IN: Stolen vehicles in yard doesn’t support SW for their records, and no GFE

CA3: Nodding yes to a request to search was consent

Defendant’s nodding yes to a request to search was consent to search the car. The officers might have believed he didn’t have standing since he was a mere passenger at the time. He didn’t mention facts supporting standing until at the police barracks, so standing doesn’t matter. United States v. Terry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10832 (3d Cir. May 6, 2025).*

The ATF affiant wasn’t required to support his employment history when he states it. He’s under oath. There is no right of confrontation in an affidavit for search warrant. Defendant’s Franks claim fails for a complete lack of an offer of proof. United States v. Fortson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85880 (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2025).*

Plaintiffs’ complaint includes a Fourth Amendment claim that fails for lack of short plain statement required by FRCP 8 of the claim. Palisades Ests. Eom, LLC v. Cty. of Rockland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85721 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution case was dismissed below. The Heck bar wasn’t discussed, and it’s remanded for further consideration of that. Clayton v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863 (4th Cir. May 6, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Consent, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: Nodding yes to a request to search was consent

W.D.Mo.: Use of stop sticks was a seizure

The use of stop sticks was a seizure, but here it was justified. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86127 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 4, 2025).*

There was nexus for defendant’s place, and the Franks claim isn’t material. United States v. Rhodes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86092 (E.D. Mo. May 6, 2025).*

Defendant’s alleged Miranda violation had nothing to do with the reasonableness of his urinalysis. There is no connection between them. United States v. Garrett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86131 (D.S.D. Mar. 14, 2025).*

This stop was relatively highly charged, and the use of force here was not clearly established to be excessive. Denial of qualified immunity is reversed. Cambre v. Gottardi, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10904 (5th Cir. May 6, 2025).*

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Excessive force, Nexus, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Use of stop sticks was a seizure