Another officer stopping the defendant under the collective knowledge doctrine at least has to be informed of what the “knowledge” is that warrants the stop. Without it, no reasonable suspicion. United States v. Roman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30416 (D.Conn. Feb. 22, 2022).
The statute pertaining to signaling when leaving a driveway applies to leaving a parking lot, so there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Willard, 2022 ND 34, 2022 N.D. LEXIS 33 (Feb. 18, 2022).*
Defendant’s conclusory Franks allegations and ineffective assistance of counsel claim don’t entitle him to even a hearing. Stanley v. State, 2022 Del. LEXIS 64 (Feb. 21, 2022).*
Posted inCollective knowledge, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on D.Conn.: Collective knowledge doctrine requires passing on some of the “knowledge”
An Old Dominion truck driver had apparent authority to open a package consigned to him and his company to haul. He became suspicious it was contraband and called the police. They wouldn’t act without probable cause so the driver took it upon himself to open the box. The officers interceded and helped finish because they became concerned it contained fentanyl. United States v. Barajas-Oceguera, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2022).
The district court was presented with two versions of whether consent was voluntarily given. On this record, that’s not clear error. United States v. Alloway, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4607 (8th Cir. Feb. 22, 2022).*
A car reported with two men and one wielding a rifle maybe casing a place was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Jackson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4579 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022).*
When a Franks challenge is based on omissions, the bar is higher. Here, defendant didn’t meet it. United States v. McCoy, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30230 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 18, 2022):
The multi-unit character of the property being searched under a warrant wasn’t immediately apparent to the officers, or so they said. The court doesn’t credit that because they knew defendant was in “apartment 3” on the third floor. Post-search follow-up made it apparent there were other apartments based on defendant’s own DMV record and assessment records of the property. The search is suppressed for lack of particularity that was readily apparent to all. The prosecution does not get the benefit of the good faith exception here. United States v. Hargraves, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30109 (W.D.Pa. Feb. 18, 2022).
Officers were dispatched to arrest a man on a warrant sleeping in a car in a motel parking lot. Defendant was in the car too. Both were ordered out of the car, and defendant fell out of the car with a gun falling behind him. The seizure was valid, and the gun was admissible. United States v. Bosman, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4513 (10th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022).*
Officers had a search warrant for the premises of a house, and an outbuilding off the curtilage was searched, too. “Defendant next argues that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant because the converted shed was outside of the main residence’s curtilage. These facts present a close call, but it is not necessary for the Court to make this determination due to the good faith exception. Even if the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant, the seized evidence would still be admitted if the officers reasonably relied in objective good faith on a subsequently invalidated warrant that was issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. … Although there was some indication that the converted shed was being used as a separate living unit, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the officers at the time of the search to believe the shed was part of the main residence and covered by the search warrant. Under the good faith exception, which is applicable here, the evidence should not be excluded.” United States v. Whitaker, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29988 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 18, 2022).
The officer had reasonable suspicion on the totality for a stop in a sparsely occupied area late at night, windows tinted so much he couldn’t see in the vehicle, defendant’s name having come up in a drug investigation the officer was aware of. United States v. Caudle, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4508 (10th Cir. Feb. 18, 2022).*
Probable cause to search a car under the automobile exception does not automatically give probable cause to search the person of the driver. It depends on the facts. State v. Stevens, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 13 (Feb. 18, 2022).
Temporarily freezing inmate funds in prison accounts is not a Fourth Amendment seizure. Montgomery v. Conrad, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29575 (M.D.Tenn. Feb. 18, 2022).
Plaintiff was served with civil process at his home, and the serving officers smelled drugs. They came back with a search warrant. The state court litigation over the search could not be revisited in federal court under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It was effectively seeking review of a state court decision. Tubbs v. Long, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29588 (M.D.Tenn. Feb. 17, 2022).*
Where refusal to submit to a DUI blood test is the offense and statute makes refusal to submit admissible, it did not violate the Fourth Amendment to instruct the jury on refusal. State v. Nelson, 2022 SD 12, 2022 S.D. LEXIS 24 (Feb. 16, 2022).
Sitting in a parked car at night was not reasonable suspicion, even if the area was known for some crimes and the car allegedly had been there before weeks earlier. Schreiner v. Hodge, 2022 Kan. LEXIS 18 (Feb. 18, 2022).*
Posted inConsent, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution|Comments Off on SD: Refusal to submit to DUI blood draw, itself an offense, could be instructed upon without violating 4A
Plaintiff’s failure to specify his standing for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation defeats his civil claim. Sanghvi v. County of San Bernardino, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4335 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022).*
“Given the findings of fact at issue here, we hold that a reasonable officer in Mateu’s position would have known that shooting a suspect who, though armed, was trying to surrender violates the Fourth Amendment. The law prohibiting police officers from seizing ‘an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead’ in the absence of ‘probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others’ is clearly established.” Banks-Reed v. Mateu, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4336 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022).*
The fact the search warrant had a typo and was called “search warrant affidavit” is of no moment. It was obviously the warrant. The affidavit also showed plenty of probable cause. Boddie v. Morales, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29509 (N.D.Ind. Feb. 18, 2022).
“The State contends, among other things, that the open-container violations provided probable cause to search the Malibu under the automobile exception. We agree with the State.” The extent of the search for liquor thus extended to a backpack where marijuana was found. State v. Rincon, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 16 (Feb. 18, 2022).
The trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress as untimely without inquiring into possible good cause or excusable neglect for the delay where the defense offered nothing on that. Defendant stripping down and leaving his clothes on the side of the road was an abandonment where the defendant was asked where his clothes were and he did not know. State v. Porter, 2022 Ida. App. LEXIS 2 (Feb. 17, 2022).
“Trooper Lewis articulated several factors to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity could have been afoot at the time in question. First, Lewis noted that the vehicle was a rental car and in his experience, individuals who transport drugs commonly use rental cars to avoid detection. Additionally, Lewis observed that the vehicle in question (1) failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle that traveled in front of it, (2) slowed to 40 miles per hour while traveling in a 55-mile-per-hour zone, and (3) made an unexpected lane change. The totality of the circumstances, therefore, supports a finding that Lewis possessed reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot and probable cause that a traffic violation had occurred.” Not ineffective assistance of counsel to have not challenged the stop. State v. Whitehead, 2022-Ohio-479, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 414 (4th Dist. Feb. 11, 2022).*
ShotSpotter alert received by a nearby officer in the early morning hours with his observations on the scene in a minute or so on the totality was reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Ford, 2022 Mass. App. LEXIS 14 (Feb. 18, 2022):
In a § 1983 case over a search of the wrong apartment, the affidavit for the search warrant could be relied upon in good faith. The mistake was negligent at best, and it didn’t support civil liability here. The officers didn’t have to stop the search until they were sure they were wrong in case they were right. Wade v. Ramos, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4411 (7th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022):
A police car blocking defendant’s car and officers getting out with guns drawn is a seizure. Here it was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. McDonald, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28667 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2022).*
A state search warrant for exotic animals resulted in a mass seizure because the officers believed there was mass neglect. There was a defense verdict in the jury trial over the seizure. “The evidence at trial supporting the jury’s determination was plentiful, and we see nothing to suggest that the district court incorrectly denied Cullen’s and Dragonwood’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. By any measure, the officers responsible for executing the search warrant, including Lieutenant Felician and Detective Simmert, faced a highly unusual, troubling, and dangerous situation. The jury stood on solid ground concluding that both officers acted with reasonable caution and well within constitutional limits in seizing every animal, so we affirm judgment for the defendants.” Dragonwood Conservatory v. Joseph, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4414 (7th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022).*
Posted inScope of search, Seizure|Comments Off on M.D.N.C.: Police-suspect confrontation with guns drawn is a seizure
“Brown first argues that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise three specific arguments in his defense: that the arresting officer violated Brown’s Fourth Amendment rights by (1) arresting Brown outside of the officer’s Birmingham jurisdiction, (2) entering a public restroom without a warrant to apprehend Brown, and (3) searching Brown’s clothing after arresting him. … Had counsel informed him of these Fourth Amendment violations, Brown contends, he would not have accepted the blind plea or would have pursued a motion to suppress.” Officers were tailing a GPS transponder from a bank robbery, and the officer had exigency to follow and enter the bathroom [And none of these suggest a constitutional violation anyway.] Brown v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28816 (N.D.Ala. Feb. 17, 2022).*
An adult riding a bicycle near a school on a Sunday was not reasonable suspicion. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the State failed to clear the ‘low bar’ of reasonable suspicion and instead relied on what could be described, at most, as ‘a mere hunch’ of the deputy.” State v. Meddaugh, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 142 (Feb. 17, 2022).*
The First Circuit makes clear that the good faith exception applies to warrant execution issues despite Leon’s statement it should not. (Not the first court to hold this.) United States v. Pimentel, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4350 (1st Cir. Feb. 17, 2022):
The Eleventh Circuit en banc concludes that the good faith exception may sometimes be reached on appeal even though the government didn’t raise it before the panel. United States v. Campbell, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4317 (11th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022) (7-5):
Police were called for a motorist assist to unlock a car. Once opened, the car smelled of marijuana, and that created probable cause. The police were invited to the curtilage. State v. Keller, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 247 (La. App. 5 Cir. Feb. 1, 2022).
Defendant was stopped for a missing front license plate. Defendant admitted that he had marijuana in the car, and one thing led to another and there was probable cause to search. The grant of the motion to suppress is reversed. United States v. Stokes, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4325 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2022).*
“Here, the trooper had reasonable articulable suspicion that Louallen was involved in criminal activity — other than mere traffic violations — when the trooper initiated the traffic stop.” Therefore, the stop was lawfully extended. Louallen v. State, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 84 (Feb. 17, 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.
