The court finds the stop without reasonable suspicion. It was allegedly justified by paper LPN that didn’t match the car as without reasonable suspicion because the tags weren’t run until after the stop. That and other factors don’t make reasonable suspicion. The body cam video supports this. Defendant’s alleged assault on the officers was not attenuated from the illegal stop under the Brown factors, all of which favor defendant. United States v. Price, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200692 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 2022).
The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to supervised release revocations. United States v. Greenbaum, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200686 (D. Colo. Nov. 3, 2022).*
“[D]espite Dorsey’s contentions to the contrary, this case does not ‘rise and fall’ on the information provided by the confidential informants.” There was plenty of other information. United States v. Dorsey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200840 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2022).*
Plaintiff shows questions for trial. He was held 30 minutes for a drug dog without reasonable suspicion. The officers claimed he looked impaired, but he had a disability that made him look that way, and they never did a FST. Klaver v. Hamilton Cty., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30642 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022).*
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights weren’t violated by the city’s order closing the motel they lived in because it was uninhabitable. There was a limited time they were without their personal property, but they were shortly allowed access to retrieve things. Patel v. Glenn, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30641 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2022).*
Under plaintiff’s version of events, the officers violated clearly established law. Under their version they did not. That’s for trial. Pheap v. City of Knoxville, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30095 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2022).*
Plaintiff was PITed by police and crashed into a pole. He can’t show malicious intent just from that. It was reasonable as a matter of law to stop him how they did because he was creating danger. Christiansen v. Eral, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30116 (8th Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).*
A writ of eviction signed by a clerk after a judgment wasn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Shuler v. Arnott, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200328 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 3, 2022).*
Posted in§ 1983 / Bivens, Seizure|Comments Off on CA6: City’s order closing hotel ptfs lived in didn’t violate 4A
Defendant’s contention the probation department failed to notify him of his search condition was a statutory violation but there is no exclusionary remedy for that. State v. Hayden, 2022-Ohio-3933, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3721 (1st Dist. Nov. 4, 2022). In some states it is statutory. You’re on notice.
In this strange case, a DA was under investigation for nepotism and obstruction of justice in that investigation, and a search warrant was issued for the DA’s work computer. State v. Bradsher, 2022-NCSC-116, 2022 N.C. LEXIS 956 (Nov. 4, 2022).*
There was probable cause for defendant’s stop, arrest, and search. United States v. Gay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201326 (D.S.D. Nov. 2, 2022).*
The USMJ gave an R&R that the motion to suppress be granted. The government doesn’t object to that, but it wants a slight change to the findings. United States v. Coleman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201327 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2022).*
Posted inExclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on OH1: No exclusionary rule for this alleged statutory violation for lack of notice of a probation search condition
Defendant was at a McDonald’s with friends outside a car. When he saw the police, he put his backpack in the bushes to hide it while remaining nearby. He also went back to it to push it deeper into the bushes. He was close enough and retained control over it to have a reasonable expectation of privacy with his friends watching over it and did not abandon it. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Whiteside, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201024 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 2022).
The stop was justified by a traffic infraction. The extended magazine sticking out of the gun on the floorboard satisfied the “immediately apparent” factor for plain view. Commonwealth v. Smith, 2022 PA Super 187, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443 (Nov. 4, 2022).
“Second, the court finds that the subject trash container was placed in an area particularly suited for public inspection and for the implicit purpose of trash collection. Whether the bottom of the trash container was situated three, four, five, or six feet away from the road is immaterial. The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there was at least a three-to-four-foot gap between the edge of the fence and the bottom of the container, which also means that the container was no more than four to five feet from the street. Therefore, the position of the container was such that any scavenger, snoop, or other member of the public would reasonably believe that the contents of the container had been discarded and presented fair game for reclamation.” United States v. Lee, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200987 (W.D. La. Oct. 18, 2022).*
Body armor found during a vehicle search under a warrant is not excluded as more prejudicial than relevant under F.R.E. 403. This is a drug case, and it’s no more prejudicial than the drugs and firearms that presumably will be admitted. United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200526 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2022).*
There was probable cause to search defendant’s hotel room. Even if there wasn’t, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Evans, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199439 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2022).*
There clearly was probable cause for the warrant for defendant’s CSLI because of text messages about drug trafficking. United States v. Ortega, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200110 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2022).*
Defendant’s tossing a firearm to the ground as police approached was reasonable suspicion. It turned out he was a felon. United States v. Rucker, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200431 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2022).*
Posted inCell site location information|Comments Off on D.Md.: Body armor found during vehicle search in drug case not more prejudicial than relevant
In a drug search warrant, firearms found during the search are seizable as an instrumentality of a drug crime. United States v. Wilkins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200342 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 19, 2022).
Defendant’s running from his car during a traffic stop was an abandonment. United States v. Harvey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199223 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2022).*
The bodycam video and the testimony at the hearing shows probable cause for defendant’s arrest. United States v. Little, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199236 (N.D. Okla. Nov. 2, 2022).*
The dashcam video showed reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop. State v. Fuentes, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1879 (La. App. 5 Cir. Nov. 2, 2022).*
Posted inAbandonment, Scope of search|Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Guns found during drug seizable as instrumentality of crime
The officers didn’t say they had probable cause at the beginning of the search of the vehicle, but on the totality they did. United States v. Wesley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200320 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2022).* The Fourth Amendment doesn’t require any officer to say that they have probable cause before they search – a common layperson’s misconception I’ve heard before. And see the Idaho case two days ago on not beginning informed of the reason for arrest.
Officers patrolling an apartment building parking lot on foot came upon a car with drugs in plain view. State v. Tabb, 2022-NCCOA-717, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 744 (Nov. 1, 2022).*
The officer had a reasonable belief that the probationer was staying at the home searched. State v. Lucas, 2022-NCCOA-714, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 719 (Nov. 1, 2022).*
There was probable cause for the warrant, and it particularly described the clothing worn by the robber that the police were looking for. People v. Fernandez, 2022 NY Slip Op 06137, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6020 (2d Dept. Nov. 2, 2022).*
Plaintiff can’t get access to search warrant papers yet because of an ongoing investigation. Second, the court won’t enjoin the use of the information from his seized telephone or order its return because of the ongoing investigation. Lindell v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200225 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2022):
The court finds, with the evidence in equipoise, the government didn’t meet its burden of showing the arrest happened inside defendant’s house or outside. This is critical, because the police did a protective sweep and used that to get a search warrant. Thus, the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Rucks, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200149 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022). This case is interesting in the court’s explanation of how it credited the testimony from both sides, finding the defendant’s testimony credible, too.
The DEA’s administrative subpoenas over records of the suspect over the alleged robbery of a marijuana dispensary were lawful exercises of power. Carpenter does not apply to mere phone records. United States v. Candelario, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199195 (D. Me. Nov. 2, 2022).
Defendant never raised the question that the search warrant was issued without probable cause and defense counsel was ineffective for not raising it until on appeal from denial of post-conviction relief. Therefore, it’s waived. Wallace v. State, Nos. 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 396 (Nov. 1, 2022).*
The search warrants here were issued on probable cause in both Mississippi and Utah. Police walking to the front door could see what they could see. Bowman v. State, 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 395 (Nov. 1, 2022).*
The officer had reasonable suspicion to seize defendant’s cell phone to get a search warrant for it. State v. Darter, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7443 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 2, 2022).*
The trial court did not deny due process by deciding the suppression issue on an alternative ground not advanced by the state below. The problem is, however, that the record does not support the result below, and it is reversed. People v. Marcial, 2022 NY Slip Op 06142, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5998 (2d Dept. Nov. 2, 2022).
Defendant doesn’t show any prejudice that he wouldn’t have pled guilty but for the alleged bad advice to plead guilty. Ruiz-Gayton v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197349 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 16, 2022).*
“Vasquez fails to identify a Fourth Amendment violation in this encounter. Once the initial stop ended and Rohr returned all of the paperwork to Vasquez, Vasquez consented to additional questioning. But even if the stop had not become consensual, by the time Rohr handed him the ticket, Rohr had reasonable suspicion to believe he was trafficking drugs and that alone warranted additional investigation. In either case, Vasquez voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of his car.” United States v. Vasquez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197664 (D. Kan. Oct. 28, 2022).*
“[I]nasmuch as the license plate was clearly legible, the Plastic Cover complied with the statute. [¶] Nevertheless, the Court holds Singley’s mistake of law to be reasonable.” United States v. Miller, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197509 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2022).*
Posted inConsent, Due process, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness|Comments Off on NY2: Trial court didn’t deny due process by deciding suppression motion on a ground not argued by state, except for being just wrong on the law
Posted inE-mail, Rule 41(g) / Return of property|Comments Off on The Recorder: Court Can’t Grant Request to Return John Eastman’s Emails, Jan. 6 Committee Says
Defendant clearly consented to a search of his backpack. When the officer encountered his laptop and opened it to turn it on, defendant never objected. Winslow v. State, 2022 Ga. LEXIS 297 (Nov. 2, 2022).
The underlying facts for reasonable suspicion were found by the District Court and are not clearly erroneous. United States v. James, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30147 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).*
Defendant’s stop yielded reasonable suspicion because his information didn’t make much sense, and he was not on a direct route from where he said he was going to but on a drug corridor, not to mention all the retaped boxes of electronic goods in the back seat. United States v. Latorre-Cacho, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197056 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2022).*
The search of the car was justified by the automobile exception, and it was for marijuana, and that allows search wherever in the car it might be. United States v. Galtney, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197210 (D. Minn. Oct. 31, 2022).*
Failure to notify an arrestee of the reason for his arrest in violation of the statute does not make the arrest violate the Fourth Amendment or state constitution. State v. Lancaster, 2022 Ida. LEXIS 133 (Nov. 1, 2022).
There were multiple acts over a period of time to show the search warrant wasn’t stale. State v. Gleason, 2022-Ohio-3893, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3668 (5th Dist. Oct. 31, 2022).*
The trial court erred in holding that the officers could not seize his cell phone with cause for a later search warrant. State v. Flack, 2022-Ohio-3861, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3655 (9th Dist. Oct. 31, 2022).*
Here, there was a search warrant for a bullet in defendant’s body. The surgeon who removed it testified by deposition. Sate v. Simpson, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 471 (Oct. 31, 2022).*
“Spencer’s claim for mandamus relief is frivolous. Liberally construing his mandamus petition, Spencer appears to seek an order directing the district court to hold a Franks hearing in his underlying criminal case in relation to the seizure of evidence used against him in his criminal prosecution. However, now that a final judgement has issued in his case, he has the adequate alternative remedy of raising suppression-related issues in his pending appeal.” In re Spencer, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 30194 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2022).
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. He was under surveillance and officers were taking pictures. He argues if there was no picture of something, it didn’t happen. But the court doesn’t agree. United States v. Rodriguez-Maldonado, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197066 (D.P.R. Oct. 26, 2022).*
A co-occupant consented to the search and there’s no indication defendant objected during from afar, as in Randolph. United States v. Long, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196754 (E.D. Va. Oct. 28, 2022).*
On the totality of information there was nexus to the place searched shown in the affidavit for warrant. United States v. Cass, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197043 (D. Neb. Oct. 26, 2022).*
Posted inConsent, Nexus|Comments Off on CA11: Can’t force a Franks hearing by mandamus; there’s a right to appeal
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a trauma room he was in about 15 minutes before the police arrived. His bloody clothes were in plain view. People v. Turner, 2022 IL App (5th) 190329, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 460 (Oct. 31, 2022):
Two men talking with another in a car in a high crime area at 11:30 pm in parking lot in a residential area was not reasonable suspicion. One of the men reached into the car, but there’s no way of telling that this was a hand-to-hand transaction. Moreover, the officer saw a bulge that he said he suspected was a gun, but he didn’t frisk there first. He found marijuana. No reasonable suspicion for the stop. Eppes v. State, 2022 Md. App. LEXIS 786 (Oct. 28, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop for crossing the center line and then reasonable suspicion based on the officer’s knowledge of the defendant and his activities from a CI he’d had for years. United States v. Mack, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196001 (N.D.W.Va. Oct. 27, 2022).*
“Although the body camera footage of Long’s arrest does not capture Saunders’ verbal consent to search the apartment, sufficient undisputed evidence demonstrates that she did validly give consent.” United States v. Long, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196754 (E.D. Va. Oct. 28, 2022).*
Officers had reasonable suspicion to extend defendant’s stop. There was also information by collective knowledge of officers. United States v. Casares, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196889 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2022).*
Posted inConsent, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on MD: Two men talking at a car idling in a parking lot in a high-crime residential area at 11:30 pm wasn’t RS
The protective sweep here looking under the bed was reasonable. It’s where people hide. Defendant’s contention the sweep went further isn’t clear. Some things were moved and opened, but a search warrant had been executed between the sweep and her reentering the house. United States v. Harrell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195776 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 27, 2022).*
A state law violation on the jurisdiction of the officer is irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195974 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2022)* (“I agree with Defendant that such a reading of the case law could lead to an absurd result. It cannot be that a local law-enforcement officer can traverse the country and, upon witnessing a potential crime that creates probable cause, stop and search people. But the Eleventh Circuit did not provide a limiting principle in Goings when it applied Moore to the question of jurisdiction, and I am bound by this precedent. Even so, this case is not one that pushes the scope of the rule to the edge.”)
The search of defendant’s backpack was a private search not even observed by the officers. United States v. Ramirez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196054 (D. Kan. Oct. 27, 2022).*
SWAT team entry into defendant’s Queens home at dawn for child pornography on a computer was not unreasonable. The police knew that only defendant, his wife, and their children (the children were “Potential Hazards” according to their operational plan) were in the house. The entry and search were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Joyce, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195834 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022):
“Mr. Adams contends that the agents coerced him into giving consent involuntarily when they threatened to seize his phone and hold it until they obtained a search warrant. … I disagree. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Mr. Adams’ consent was voluntary and that the agents’ statements about the existence of exigent circumstances and their ability to obtain a warrant were both supported by law and a fair characterization of how the investigation would proceed.” United States v. Adams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196352 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2022).*
The protective sweep here looking under the bed was reasonable. Defendant’s contention the sweep went further isn’t clear. Some things were moved and opened, but a search warrant had been executed between the sweep and her reentering the house. United States v. Harrell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195776 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 27, 2022).*
A state law violation on the jurisdiction of the officer is irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Nelson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195974 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2022)* (“I agree with Defendant that such a reading of the case law could lead to an absurd result. It cannot be that a local law-enforcement officer can traverse the country and, upon witnessing a potential crime that creates probable cause, stop and search people. But the Eleventh Circuit did not provide a limiting principle in Goings when it applied Moore to the question of jurisdiction, and I am bound by this precedent. Even so, this case is not one that pushes the scope of the rule to the edge.”)
"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.
