If there is an arrest warrant, the executing officer doesn’t have to look behind it to determine its validity. Other alleged probable cause for defendant’s stop is immaterial. United States v. Cox, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7551 (W.D.Ky. Jan. 14, 2022).
A ShotSpotter alert four minutes earlier brought officers and defendant’s car was the only one in the area at the time. Defendant’s demeanor while walking suggested he had a gun on him. The stop was valid. When questioned, defendant said he just left a friend’s but he couldn’t name him. A patdown validly produced meth. State v. Carter, 2022-Ohio-91, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 78 (2d Dist. Jan. 13, 2022).*
Heck bar applies to plaintiff’s claim his parole was unlawfully extended. Brennan v. Allison, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7312 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 12, 2022).*
Defendant argues that the inventory was pretextual to search for evidence of crime, except that there already was probable cause at that point for an automobile exception search. On a later vehicle search, there also was a warrant. Failing to challenge the search warrant for the car obviates the automobile exception. United States v. Phillips, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7162 (N.D.Okla. Jan. 13, 2022).
Information about defendant’s LPN captured by a license plate reader didn’t violate any reasonable expectation of privacy under Jones or Carpenter. United States v. Porter, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6755 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 13, 2022).
Defendant didn’t appeal from the order sealing a search warrant so it can’t be considered. State v. Justice, 2022-Ohio-87, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 65 (10th Dist. Jan. 13, 2022).
Whether the engine of a mobile home was running or not doesn’t matter. It was capable of movement so the search was valid under the automobile exception. “The fact that the motor home had a bathroom and kitchen and looked lived in does not have any bearing on the motor home’s apparent ability to be readily mobile.” “There were no outward and apparent circumstances indicating that the vehicle was incapable of or not intended for transportation–such as the motor home being placed on cinder blocks or located in an area where it was suitable for residential use.” United States v. Bigbee, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6976 (D.Minn. Jan. 13, 2022).
The U.S. Court of Claims doesn’t have jurisdiction over collateral review of convictions even with a Fourth Amendment claim. Therefore, there’s no appellate review either. Myles v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1030 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for continuing this roadside detention from the conflicting stories they had and the fact defendant was increasing nervousness and shaking hands. United States v. McNeil, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1082 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2022).*
Posted inAutomobile exception, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.Minn.: Automobile exception applied to RV with engine not on blocks; was capable of movement
Defendant originally moved to suppress a search which included a video. Then he decided he needed it at trial, so it was waived. United States v. Savage, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250209 (E.D.Okla. Nov. 19, 2021) (see Treatise § 60.19, Should the evidence even be suppressed? If you succeed, what happens with your case?)
Defendant didn’t appeal from the order sealing a search warrant so it can’t be considered in this appeal. State v. Justice, 2022-Ohio-87, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 65 (10th Dist. Jan. 13, 2022).
The U.S. Court of Claims doesn’t have jurisdiction over collateral review of convictions even with a Fourth Amendment claim. Therefore, there’s no appellate review either. Myles v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1030 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2022).
Posted inWaiver, Warrant papers|Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Motion to suppress waived when defense needed the evidence at trial
The Secretary of Labor’s administrative subpoena duces tecum here did not violate the Fourth Amendment. “A warrant is required only when government officials enter onto a private party’s premises without consent and forcibly take possession of documents.” Walsh v. Int’l Union, Local No. 18, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250148 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 23, 2021).
The officer developed reasonable suspicion for further detention before he said “good to go.” Once he had it, he didn’t need additional reasonable suspicion after that to extend the stop. People v. Gamboa-Jimenez, 2022COA10, 2022 Colo. App. LEXIS 72 (Jan. 13, 2022).
A nine month delay to search a seized computer was not unreasonable. United States v. Baker, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6416 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2022).*
The foregone conclusion rationale for access to passcodes for cell phones. There was no Fifth Amendment privilege to providing the passcodes. Inevitable discovery applies. United States v. Zhengdong Cheng, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6437 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 12, 2022):
When a federal search warrant results in a state prosecution, federal law applies to the search in state court. Here it applied to a scope of search question that might have been decided differently under state law. This court held that as to anticipatory warrants in State v. Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884 (Iowa 2017), which are barred under state law. State v. Stockman, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 48 (Jan. 12, 2022).
“Finally, even if the warrants were somehow faulty, under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, the Court still would not suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to them. See generally United States v. Hodge, 246 F.3d 301,307-08(3d Cir. 2001) (“The mere existence of a warrant typically suffices to prove that an officer conducted a search in good faith and justifies application of the good faith exception.”). United States v. Pritchett, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6010 (D.Del. Jan. 12, 2022).
Posted inConflict of laws, Good faith exception|Comments Off on IA: Conflict of laws: Federal SW that ends up in state prosecution governed by federal law, not state
A BOLO that matched defendant’s car was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Yanez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6376 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 12, 2022).
Cell phone communication and text messages about drug deals with the defendant gave probable cause to search his car when he showed up. United States v. Ralston, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6405 (N.D.Ohio Jan. 12, 2022).*
Defendant was hospitalized after a shooting where an armed concerned citizen shot a robber. In the hospital room, defendant claimed to be a victim. He consented to search for his cell phone and it was in a hospital bag. He consented to that entry into the bag and the rest was plain view, as shown by the bodycam. United States v. Segura, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6334 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 12, 2022).*
Plaintiff’s perfunctory Fourth Amendment claim is Heck barred because he seeks to undermine his conviction. If it were more specific, maybe it would have overcome Heck, but this doesn’t. Raney v. Wisconsin, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 966 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022).
“Here, Movant offers no reason to conclude he did not have a full and fair opportunity to challenge the warrant at trial. … ‘The relevant inquiry is whether petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his claim, not whether he did in fact do so or even whether the claim was correctly decided.’ Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1996).” The argument that defense counsel somehow had a conflict of interest on the search question is rejected for being conclusory. McReynolds v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6005 (D.Ariz. Jan. 12, 2022).*
Posted inIssue preclusion|Comments Off on CA7: Perfunctory 4A claim was treated as Heck barred
“Velarde-Pavia has offered no evidence that Officer Juarez lied in his affidavit. Rather than make the needed ‘substantial preliminary showing,’ Velarde-Pavia only speculates that Officer Juarez could be lying–that is not enough.” As to informant hearsay, the affidavit for the warrant supported the CI’s veracity, showing his experience with three controlled buys and the fact he was involved in activity with defendant within 72 hours of the issuance of the warrant. United States v. Velarde-Pavia, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 935 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022).
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality of circumstances. Defendant’s flight alone wasn’t objectively reasonable suspicion, but here it helped turn otherwise potentially innocent observations into reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ballance, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 937 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022).
The statute of limitations for a false arrest case starts with release. Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill. (Manuel II), 903 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2018), on remand from Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017). Atwood v. Thompson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5731 (S.D.Ind. Jan. 10, 2022).*
Whether exigency existed for police action in a § 1983 case is a fact question for a jury, but the facts here are not in dispute that there was no exigency. Marbury v. Karish, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5771 (E.D.Mich. Jan. 11, 2022).*
For a case alleging a traffic stop interfered with the “right to travel” of a “sovereign man” [not a “sovereign citizen”] and alleged Fourth Amendment violations, see Bey v. Woolridge, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5818 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 12, 2022).*
“Brennan tried to get Betts to stand behind the truck by invitation, explanation, command, and even by grasping his arm. And Brennan warned Betts more than once that he would be tased if he did not comply with his orders. Only when all those lesser options appeared to have failed did Brennan use his taser.” “In sum, we conclude that Officer Brennan did not violate the Fourth Amendment by tasing Betts one time in order to arrest him.” Betts v. Brennan, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 797 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).* [Remember: “Taser” is a proper noun (https://taser.com/) like Kleenex is (and Aspirin once was).]
Asking defendant for consent to search when there were three officers around and then telling the others she declined unreasonably extended the stop even though it was 50 seconds. No decision had been made to issue a ticket or a warning at that point. The stop was for a defective brake light, and nothing added up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Keith, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249938 (S.D.Ga. Dec. 2, 2021), adopted Doc. 41 (Jan. 10, 2022) (on Pacer but not yet on Lexis; 2022 WL 95287):
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: [Gratuitously] asking motorist for consent deviated from the mission of the stop; motion to suppress granted
“In arguing that he was entitled to a Franks hearing, Landaverde-Giron relies only on his own conclusory allegations to demonstrate intentional falsity or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant. He points to no evidence supporting his conclusion that any alleged falsehoods about his Facebook account were made with the mental state required for a Franks hearing. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Landaverde-Giron’s motion to suppress without a Franks hearing.” United States v. Landaverde-Giron, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 859 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).*
“Sixth and finally, Thornton alleges a Fourth Amendment Violation. … All he says is, ‘The material, warrants, affidavits and e[tc.]’ The Court simply cannot conjure any prejudicial error from these six words. The allegation is incomprehensibly vague and unsupported by specific facts. [¶] Given the vagueness of Thornton’s claims for relief and the total lack of factual support, he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a prejudicial error.” He was given an opportunity to amend and clarify and he didn’t. Denied. United States v. Thornton, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249636 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 17, 2021),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446 (E.D.Ky. Jan. 7, 2022).*
Where the legislature requires traffic arrests be made by uniformed, sworn, and salaried officers, arrest by a reserve deputy violates the state constitution. State v. Wright, 2022 N.M. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 10, 2022).
“The Court finds that Mr. Hunley was not stopped or seized by police prior to the officers having reasonable suspicion that there was an outstanding felony warrant for his arrest. Because Mr. Hunley was not stopped when asked for his name and date of birth, Officer Piscoya did not unlawfully extend a stop in order to conduct the warrant checks.” He gave the officer a fake name and birthday. All this happened at 4 am in July in Anchorage, and the video shows it was not dark. United States v. Hunley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5327 (D.Alaska Jan. 11, 2022).*
State parole officers with reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in drugs could seize and search his cell phone. United States v. Devaughn, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5406 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022).
There was no reasonable suspicion for a probation search of defendant on supervision who met up with a coworker on a Wendy’s parking lot after work. “There is some evidence indicating that this was an area of Milwaukee where drugs were sold, but, unfortunately, drugs are sold almost everywhere. The parking lot serves two business and is adjacent to a freeway exit, making it a relatively convenient rendezvous point for a coworker driving back to Milwaukee from a building site in Lake Geneva.” “Moreover, Johnson and his coworker calmly gave plausible, consistent, and innocent reasons for their meeting, which ought to have dispelled any percolating suspicion. The police extended the stop in the hopes of extracting some basis for the search, but, objectively, the situation remained unsuspicious until the police searched the car and found drugs. Johnson invoked Maslow’s hammer–a confirmation bias that leads people to mistaken outcomes–and the Court will repeat it here: ‘[I]t is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.’” United States v. Johnson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4954 (E.D.Wis. Jan. 11, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for the probation search of defendant’s house based on his wife’s report that he was using meth again. The supervisory PO authorized a warrantless entry if necessary. The record is limited as to the reasonableness of the search itself, including defendant sitting handcuffed and naked for 30 minutes on his bed. The court finds the exclusionary rule inapplicable because that had nothing to do with the legality of the entry. “It is beyond genuine material dispute on the evidentiary record in this case that the cause-in-fact of the discovery of the methamphetamine, which was the subject of the subsequent motion to suppress, was not the manner of the officers’ entry into his apartment, but their reasonable suspicion that he had been using and was in possession of methamphetamine in violation of his probation and the criminal law, thus justifying a warrantless entry and related search under the probation search exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10-11 of the Montana Constitution.” State v. Peoples, 2022 MT 4, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 5 (Jan. 11, 2022).
Defendant’s knock-and-talk led to a consent search. “Courts consider six primary factors to determine whether consent to a search is knowing and voluntary: (1) the voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status; (2) presence of coercive police procedures; (3) the extent and level of the defendant’s cooperation with the police; (4) the defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse consent; (5) the defendant’s education and intelligence; and (6) the defendant’s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found.” On the totality, the search was by consent. However, a post-Miranda statement is suppressed. United States v. Sanchez-Ceja, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4963 (N.D.Tex. Jan. 11, 2022).*
Mercedes-Benz is a private actor for § 1983 purposes. Moskovits v. Mercedes-Benz United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4429 (S.D.Fla. Jan. 10, 2022).*
The scope of the search warrant was properly limited to the probable cause showing. United States v. Lonich, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 619 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2022).*
A warrant is required for administrative searches under the Mississippi constitution, which also protects all land owned by the complainant, including open fields. Plain view is inapplicable here. The exclusionary rule applies to this administrative search and seizure. Okhuysen v. City of Starkville, 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 17 (Jan. 11, 2022).
“We conclude that the officers, who checked the driver’s license status in three states before initiating the traffic stop, made a reasonable mistake of fact that does not negate the Fourth Amendment validity of the traffic stop.” Then the smell of marijuana permitted a search of the vehicle. United States v. Davis, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 688 (4th Cir. Jan. 10, 2022).*
This patdown was consensual. The officer felt what was, to him, obviously packaged drugs. It didn’t ripen to a Terry stop until the plain feel. United States v. England, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4725 (N.D.Ohio Jan. 10, 2022).*
The inventory here wasn’t complete because defendant’s cell phone wasn’t in the inventory and apparently left behind. [Now that’s ironic.] A gun and ammunition were. Because they are dangerous instrumentalities, that makes the inventory reasonable. “It is not obvious to the court that suppression is the appropriate remedy to address a trooper’s failure to complete an inventory search with the degree of thoroughness required by the PSP field regulation. And, Shirk has not cited any authority for the proposition that items seized during an inventory search that fails to meet the standards set by the PSP should be suppressed.” United States v. Shirk, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4689 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 10, 2022).
An obvious typo in a date is not reckless under Franks. In haste to complete a search warrant affidavit, two days of information had been omitted. This was not negligent or reckless for Leon purposes, and the good faith exception applies. Moreover, the omissions worked to defendant’s benefit. It was not so lacking in probable cause that the good faith exception should not apply. United States v. Medearis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3500 (D.S.D. Jan. 7, 2022),* adopting 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249597 (D.S.D. Nov. 17, 2021).
Facebook’s passing on suspected child pornography on its platform is a private search. Moreover, Facebook’s terms of service show a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for child porn. United States v. Montijo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4577 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 10, 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.
