The officers’ delay in executing the search warrant for defendant’s property until he was there so he could be searched, too, was not unreasonable. The warrant had not gone stale by the time it was executed. State v. Alexander, 2022-Ohio-1812, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 1682 (4th Dist. May 24, 2022).
The state search warrant for database alteration was argued to have been issued in excess of jurisdiction. The computer was allegedly in the issuing court’s jurisdiction, and that was founded on probable cause. United States v. Naheed Mangi, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96813 (N.D.Cal. May 31, 2022).
Plaintiff’s claim under Thompson v. Clark fails. With all that he alleges, the state court judge still could have found probable cause on the totality for the prosecution to be initiated. Moses-El v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14847 (10th Cir. May 31, 2022).*
“The Court denies the Government’s motion to prohibit Defendant from cross-examining IRS Special Agent Jason Nix on his sworn statements contained in a search warrant application. See ECF 100 at 13-15. Defendant may cross examine Special Agent Nix regarding any misstatements made in the affidavit that go to credibility and bias. This Court is, however, cognizant that the search warrant affidavit has already been litigated, ECF 81, and cautions Defendant against any cross examination that is harassing or that results in a mini-Franks hearing. The Government may renew its objection if necessary during trial.” United States v. Millegan, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95496 (D.Ore. May 27, 2022).
The known CI provided information, and the officer had no reason to doubt it. Franks claim fails. United States v. Green, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96091 (M.D.Pa. May 27, 2022).*
An officer does not have to actually see a weapon before using deadly force if he or she sees a movement that indicates the suspect is drawing a weapon. Qualified immunity granted. N.S. v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Commissioners, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14832 (8th Cir. May 31, 2022).*
techdirt: Utah Cops Used ‘Reverse Warrants’ To Track Down A Bunch Of Petty Criminals by Tim Cushing (“Whenever cops discover a new means or method of tracking people that seems to run afoul of the letter (if not the spirit) of the Fourth Amendment, they’re quick to defend these actions by claiming they’re necessary to hunt down the most dangerous of criminals: terrorists, sexual exploiters of children, kidnappers, homicide suspects, etc. When pressed for details, it usually turns out Fourth Amendment eluding by law enforcement tends to focus on the same sort of bog standard crime cops could be using regular stuff to handle, rather than seeking “national security” exceptions for their rights violations.”)
Posted inNational security|Comments Off on techdirt: Utah Cops Used ‘Reverse Warrants’ To Track Down A Bunch Of Petty Criminals
CNN: Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move by Joan Biskupic (“Supreme Court officials are escalating their search for the source of the leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, taking steps to require law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, three sources with knowledge of the efforts have told CNN. Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel.”)
Posted inSCOTUS|Comments Off on CNN: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move
“Anderson’s tasing of Nyah constituted a warrantless arrest.” “Here, Anderson had probable cause to arrest Nyah.” United States v. Nyah, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14609 (8th Cir. May 27, 2022).
There was reasonable suspicion for the stop and defendant validly consented. United States v. Vasquez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94384 (E.D.Va. May 25, 2022).*
Defendant was validly stopped and detained in handcuffs when he started “pleading” with the officer and ultimately made voluntary incriminating statements about the gun he had. United States v. Brown, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94801 (E.D.Mich. May 26, 2022).*
Defendant’s traffic stop led to him being ordered out of the car and a plain view of a gun. United States v. McClellan, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95084 (N.D.Ohio May 26, 2022).*
The exclusionary rule applies to Oklahoma City’s effort to enforce a warrantless entry to seize and forfeit birds in apparent distress. Oklahoma applies the exclusionary rule in most civil cases under its state constitutional provision against unreasonable searches. There was also a parallel animal cruelty case pending. In re Fourteen Exotic Parrot-Like Birds v. Fondren, 2022 OK CIV APP 17, 2022 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 8 (Apr. 28, 2022).
Petitioner’s state habeas claim against his search and seizure is barred by laches, even if it could otherwise lie. He waited 16 years, and the officer involved no longer remembers the events. Ex parte Medrano, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 3591 (Tex. App. – El Paso May 26, 2022).*
Aside from justification for a stop, there was “weak” reasonable suspicion based on innocuous factors never rising to real reasonable suspicion and, of course, no probable cause for a vehicle search. The claim a roach on the floorboard led to smelling of marijuana which was never mentioned by the officers was discounted. Suppressed. United States v. Bryant, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94506 (S.D.Ohio May 26, 2022).*
Plaintiffs’ claims that various constitutional rights were infringed by the state Attorney General’s alleged politically motivated investigation are barred by the Younger doctrine. As to the Fourth Amendment claim, it was directed at subpoenas. Trump v. James, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95250 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2022).
An inflatable boat seized with a yacht for forfeiture was reasonably related to the yacht to be included within the forfeiture. United States v. Vaccaro, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95130 (N.D.Ohio May 12, 2022).*
There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. The excessive force claim fails on qualified immunity. Amaral v. City of San Diego, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14561 (9th Cir. May 26, 2022).*
Defendant’s 2255 search claim is based on alleged newly discovered evidence. It’s not. The search was litigated in the criminal case. Hester v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95226 (E.D.Tex. May 26, 2022).*
Defendant here gets reconsideration of his discovery request over an alleged pretextual stop under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 1). He gets over the threshold for a preliminary showing. The trial court impermissibly rejected the claim. Young v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 459 (1st Dist. May 26, 2022):
For some reason, the federal government and defendant do not have the state search warrant in this case after it indicted defendants. So, “The Court ORDERS the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County to unseal state search warrant No. 66956 for disclosure to the parties in this case.” United States v. Sumlin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94325 (C.D.Cal. May 23, 2022).
The officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop based on specific and articulable facts that occurred during the traffic stop, because defendant was traveling from a location that was a known point of origin for narcotics, his demeanor was suspicious, he was visibly shaking, he appeared uncomfortable when asked about his travel plans, and he had sprayed a fragrance in the car to mask the scent of narcotics. United States v. Noriega, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14375 (8th Cir. May 26, 2022).*
This habeas petitioner does not get a CoA for appeal. The state courts decided his search and seizure claim and he can’t raise it in a 2254. Meyer v. Crow, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14421 (10th Cir. May 26, 2022).*
Where the officers followed defendant into a gated community, the roadway within was not curtilage. Evans v. State, 995 S.W.2d 284, 286 (Tex. App.—Houston (14th Dist.) 1999, pet. ref’d). However, the entry into defendant’s own curtilage was unreasonable. State v. Jones, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 3575 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburgh May 26, 2022).
In a search warrant application for cockfighting, defendant claims a Franks challenge from an alleged misstatement about the extent of public records searches to locate the owners and occupants of the land. “GW has not met the threshold substantiality requirement for a Franks hearing and his request for a hearing is denied.” There was probable cause for the warrant with defendant’s alleged participation in the operation. United States v. Easterling, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94169 (N.D.Ala. May 11, 2022).*
The affidavit for the search warrant here showed probable cause on the totality, despite defendant’s claim the CI wasn’t properly corroborated. The CI was corroborated enough by what the officers otherwise learned about defendant’s operation. United States v. Lowe, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94191 (D.Kan. May 25, 2022).*
Defendant wasn’t entitled to a Franks hearing by attempting to show that he had an alibi for only one controlled buy at issue, which wasn’t quite good enough anyway for probable cause. United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93561 (D.Minn. May 25, 2022).*
Defendant in his motion to suppress didn’t show standing, and the little record there is suggests none. The parties are invited to brief it further. United States v. Wills, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93642 (D.Conn. May 25, 2022).*
Petitioner’s 2255 claim that the drug dog’s records had been altered fails under Franks. Nahmani v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93916 (S.D.Fla. May 25, 2022).*
Appellant’s specific issue for appeal wasn’t the one presented to the trial court, so it’s waived. Rodriguez v. State, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 3546 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburgh May 26, 2022).*
Police responded to a medical emergency and it turned into a narcotics investigation without reasonable suspicion. Defendant’s consent when surrounded by three police officers, one of whom thought it was a narcotics stop, was involuntary and the consent is suppressed. Commonwealth v. Martinez, 2022 Va. App. LEXIS 185 (May 24, 2022) (unpublished)
When a motion to suppress is filed in Pennsylvania, the state carries the burden of going forward. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 2022 PA Super 95, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 230 (May 25, 2022).
Officers were investigating child endangerment, and the encounter with defendant was a seizure and it was reasonable. State v. Torres, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 416 (May 25, 2022).*
The trial court erred in suppressing because the officer didn’t testify to being more trained on the smell of marijuana. State v. Mathews, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 257 (May 25, 2022);* State v. Johnson, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 254 (May 25, 2022).*
Posted inBurden of proof, Consent, Probable cause|Comments Off on VA: Police call to medical emergency developed into invalid consent for drug search
The officer was justified in a welfare check of defendant sleeping in his car, but it never developed into reasonable suspicion. The stop was unreasonably extended. State v. Zeimer, 2022 MT 96, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 479 (May 24, 2022).
A zoning inspection here to get a permit was reasonable. The homeowner couldn’t require the county to do it after the permit was granted. Schmid v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14096 (9th Cir. May 24, 2022).*
The CI was questioned under oath by the state court judge [as happens in NY], and the redacted portions of the transcript relate only to his or her identity and not the merits of the probable cause. United States v. Bailey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93149 (W.D.N.Y. May 24, 2022).*
The inventory here was proper in scope and within the NYSP policy. United States v. Morris, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93273 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for and continuing defendant’s stop. A dog sniff was permitted. The dog’s alert, however, didn’t permit a strip search of defendant. It did permit a search of the person. State v. Owensby, 2022-Ohio-1702, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 1592 (12th Dist. May 23, 2022).
Even though the officer had probable cause for a search warrant, his threat to “toss” defendant’s father’s place and unreasonably search it was coercion for defendant’s statement. United States v. Jacobs, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92701 (E.D.Ohio May 24, 2022).
The warrant affiant doesn’t have to be the one involved in the controlled buy under collective knowledge. United States v. McCallister, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13964 (4th Cir. May 23, 2022).*
“This appeal arises out of a traffic stop where a single officer, without having reasonable suspicion that a crime involving the passenger was afoot, checked the passenger for outstanding warrants. The officer used her patrol vehicle’s computer and received a ‘hit’ for a warrant and arrested the passenger. After the arrest, the officer discovered methamphetamine in the passenger’s purse, the rear of the patrol vehicle where the passenger was seated, and on the passenger’s person. The district court ordered the methamphetamine evidence suppressed after concluding the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop by checking the passenger for outstanding warrants absent reasonable suspicion or a safety justification particular to that stop. We reverse and remand as the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement to check passengers for outstanding warrants as a matter of course during traffic stops because of officer safety concerns.” State v. Wharton, 2022 Ida. LEXIS 60 (May 23, 2022).
This inventory followed policy and was otherwise reasonable, despite the investigative motive the police also probably had. State v. Johnson, 2022-Ohio-1733, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 1613 (10th Dist. May 24, 2022).
The anticipatory warrant here was lawful, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. Gober v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92964 (N.D.Ala. May 24, 2022).*
The affidavit failed to show probable cause. There was a minimal showing of nexus. That’s enough here for the good faith exception. United States v. Helton, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13943 (6th Cir. May 24, 2022):
The City of Los Angeles e-scooter ordinance requires the scooters to have GPS and provide real time tracking information. This is classic third-party data, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of scooter users in that information. Sanchez v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13821 (9th Cir. May 23, 2022).
Tackling an unarmed and unresisting person suspected of a robbery breaking his hip could be found by a jury to be unreasonable. “Although plaintiff was suspected of a serious crime, viewing the evidence in his favor, the detectives knew that he was not armed and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone as he exited the courthouse. Under these circumstances, a reasonable jury could find that the degree of force used against plaintiff violated his Fourth Amendment right against excessive force, and the detectives were not entitled to summary judgment on the question of whether they committed a constitutional violation.” Andrews v. City of Henderson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13809 (9th Cir. May 23, 2022).*
On the totality, the officer had reasonable suspicion from the inability of defendants to provide basic information about themselves and each other. There was voluntary consent to search the car. United States v. Gonzalez-Carmona, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13908 (8th Cir. May 24, 2022).*
The Michigan Supreme Court remanded Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819 (Mar. 18, 2021) (posted here) to determine below whether the exclusionary rule should apply in a zoning case. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2022 Mich. LEXIS 981 (May 20, 2022).*
Alleged violation of prison mail regulations in handling legal mail on a flash drive doesn’t make a Fourth Amendment claim. Young v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13724 (6th Cir. May 18, 2022).
Defendant’s argument reasonable suspicion dissipated during his stop is rejected based on his demeanor during the stop. United States v. Baird, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91410 (D.Utah May 20, 2022).*
The subpoena to the RNC raises complicated Fourth Amendment issues despite the Speech and Debate Clause. A stay pending appeal is granted because the case could become moot and the RNC suffer irreparable harm before the appeal is complete. Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Pelosi, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91503 (D.D.C. May 20, 2022).*
A person in prison has no standing to contest a wiretap on a contraband cell phone. United States v. Yandell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91166 (E.D.Cal. May 20, 2022).
“The facts of this case indicate that [Officer] Leitzen, while conducting a lawful Terry frisk for weapons, determined based on his experience that the objects he felt in Hunt’s pocket were packaged drugs, specifically either powder cocaine, crack cocaine, or heroin. Unlike in Dickerson, the record in this case contains no evidence to suggest that Leitzen extended the pat-down or explored Hunt’s pocket further than permitted to discover if Hunt was armed. This determination that Hunt at that moment possessed illegal drugs, if founded, would establish probable cause for Hunt’s arrest and seizure of the drugs after a search incident to his arrest.” State v. Hunt, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 60 (May 20, 2022).* https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/14183/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion
This stop was reasonably extended because reasonable suspicion developed during it. United States v. Taylor, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91172 (E.D.Tenn. May 20, 2022).*
The government’s first justification for the stop, a traffic offense, fails. It’s “fall back argument” that there was reliable information from a CI does not. United States v. Boatright, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90944 (N.D.Tex. May 20, 2022).*
"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.
