Two officers in two cars pulled up on defendant walking down the street with another known druggy. The officers and defendant knew each other because they’d arrested him before. The trial court did not err in finding this was a stop without reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Perry, 2021 Ky. LEXIS 356 (Sept. 30, 2021).
There was probable cause for two search warrants on defendant’s property for evidence of enticement of a minor. United States v. Young, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191261 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2021).*
Defendant waived his Fourth Amendment claim by pleading guilty with no conditional plea. Moreover, defendant’s position in his habeas petition on the search claim is adverse to the one he raised before trial. Farmer v. Colvin, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191274 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2021).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Waiver|Comments Off on KY: Stop of a known druggy on the street was without RS
The delay between the search and the seizure of defendant’s cell phones seized on his arrest was 101 days long, but, compared to the reduced privacy interest in the phone because of evidentiary value, it was not constitutionally unreasonable. United States v. Corbett, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191323 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021).
In concurring to an Anders opinion, a dissenting judge finds a failure to announce shown on bodycam video until after the officers were inside was enough to rebrief. State v. Robinson, 2021-NCCOA-533, 2021 N.C. App. LEXIS 531 (Oct. 5, 2021).*
The Fourth Amendment issue presented on appeal is not the same as the issue tried in the suppression motion, so it is waived. State v. Cox, 2021-NCCOA-551, 2021 N.C. App. LEXIS 550 (Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished).*
A drug dog’s nose through a car window before alerting is a search and a Jones trespass. De minimis, yet, but still a trespass. There was no probable cause for the automobile exception, and the state waived standing by not arguing it below. State v. Howard, 2021 Ida. LEXIS 159 (Oct. 5, 2021):
The street tip officers got was transmitted now third hand to the stopping officer. The tips were unremarkable about their credibility and weight. The court finds no reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop. United States v. Joyner, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190791 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2021).
Defendant wasn’t seized when officers approached him and then he fled. United States v. Montgomery, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190564 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 4, 2021).*
A police car pulling up next to defendant on the street and talking to him was a seizure. He would not have thought he was free to leave. There was, however, reasonable suspicion for the stop based on a 911 call about a robbery with him matching the description. When he raised his hands, a gun fell out. The stop was reasonable. United States v. Warren, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190535 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 4, 2021).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Seizure|Comments Off on D.N.J.: Generalized “street tip” about defendant wasn’t RS
Defendant fled up stairs when the police entered on a search warrant. He was captured finally on the third floor landing and was brought downstairs. A gun was found where he was lying on the floor. It was abandoned. United States v. Williams, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190462 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2021).
“The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not ordinarily apply to foreign searches and seizures. … The record does not support that the Mexican officials’ arrest of Pierson, or their search of his vehicle and residence, ‘shocks the judicial conscience.’ … Furthermore, the record does not support that United States officials’ communication with Mexican officials was sufficient to trigger the ‘joint venture’ doctrine. See Lira, 515 F.2d at 71 (merely soliciting a foreign government to arrest a fugitive within its borders does not constitute United States participation under the doctrine). Pierson’s post-Miranda statement to law enforcement after arriving in the United States also appears to have been voluntary.” United States v. Pierson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189442 (E.D.Ark. Oct. 1, 2021).
Posted inAbandonment, Foreign searches|Comments Off on D.D.C.: Def abandoned a gun in flight up stairs in a house
A statutory violation is not subject to suppression unless it also shows a violation of the Constitution. “Suppression is a remedy only for a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which in turn, only requires that a search and seizure be reasonable, that is, supported by probable cause. The Fourth Amendment is not concerned with which state actors are authorized by state law to effect a seizure of property or with mandated statutory procedures.” State v. Fluhart, 2021-Ohio-3560, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3481 (12th Dist. Oct. 4, 2021).
FST is a seizure governed by the Fourth Amendment, and this one had reasonable suspicion. State v. Colbert, 2021-Ohio-3551, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3461 (5th Dist. Sept. 29, 2021).*
Posted inExclusionary rule, Seizure|Comments Off on OH12: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to violations of statute unless it also violates 4A
Google Translate is not constitutionally sufficient to attempt to get consent from a non-English speaking motorist. Some of the translations here were non-sensical. Alternatively, however, the search was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Ramirez-Mendoza, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190338 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 1, 2021):
Posted inConsent|Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Google Translate is not constitutionally sufficient to attempt to get consent from a non-English speaking motorist
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an abandoned house he was using, and the trial court erred in finding one. State v. Jackson, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 1354 (La. App. 1 Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).
Articulable facts supported this protective sweep along with execution of this arrest warrant. United States v. Cruz, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190073 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2021).*
“Based upon our de novo review of this constitutional issue, and after considering the totality of the circumstances [and the bodycam video], we conclude Officer Bassett used excessive force to detain N.A. when he grabbed and pulled a non-threatening, non-fleeing, and non-resisting female teenager to the ground in a dark room, without warning.” People in the Interest of N.A., 2021 SD 57, 2021 S.D. LEXIS 110 (Sept. 29, 2021).*
An undercover officer radioed a patrol officer to stop defendant for impeding traffic for blocking the street while talking car to car. When stopped, the patrol officer didn’t even know the reason for the stop nor where the offense occurred. Still, such details don’t need to be provided for “collective knowledge,” a phrase not even used by the court. State v. Mosley, 2021-Ohio-3472, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3447 (1st Dist. Oct. 1, 2021).
“Notwithstanding any potential errors by the state authorities in retaining Haymon’s phone or turning it over to the federal authorities, because the investigators searched the contents of Haymon’s phone pursuant to a facially valid federal search warrant the district court appropriately determined that the cell phone evidence was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule announced in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913, 918-20 (1984). Additionally, we find that, in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting Haymon’s guilt, any error in admitting evidence from Haymon’s phone was harmless. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 53 (1970) (applying harmless error analysis to admission of evidence taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment).” United States v. Haymon, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29669 (4th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).*
Posted inCell phones, Collective knowledge|Comments Off on OH1: Collective knowledge doesn’t require transmission of PC between officers
Defendant alleges that NCMEC or the police expanded a private search. “However, Defendant concedes that he has no knowledge or evidence that either NCMEC or the police expanded the scope of the Facebook search. … Therefore, Defendant cannot assert that the Fourth Amendment is, in fact, implicated.” United States v. Young, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190017 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2021).
“At that point, Deputy Morten had enough information to issue a traffic citation but instead prolonged the stop on the basis of his knowledge of Larson’s prior convictions and his observing movements consistent with concealing an object under the front passenger seat, witnessing Larson’s ‘jumpy’ and ‘evasive’ behavior, and learning of their indirect route and suspicious sightseeing justification. We conclude these factors support the finding that there was ‘ample, competent evidence in the record … that raised reasonable suspicion’ to expand the stop into a drug investigation.” State v. Marsolek, 2021 ND 175, 2021 N.D. LEXIS 175 (Sept. 30, 2021).*
Admissions a defendant made to the officer asking questions recorded by bodycam are not private communications under the wiretap statute. Mally v. State, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 877 (Sept. 30, 2021) (unpublished).*
A pseudo welfare check cannot be a ruse for a plain view under Jardines. Police officers entering defendant’s girlfriend’s yard under the guise of a welfare check over the normal access route were looking for and discovered a 9 mm bullet in plain view. [Vermont law gives him standing.] The case law relied upon by the trial court is overruled, and the case remanded for new findings of fact under a new standard under Jardines informed by state law. State v. Calabrese, 2021 VT 76, 2021 Vt. LEXIS 100 (Oct. 1, 2021):
“Like the district court, we ‘evaluate each of the factors supporting reasonable suspicion separately and in aggregate.’ … The following led Webb to believe Defendant might be engaged in criminal activity: (1) excessive nervousness; (2) the strong scent of air freshener; (3) the presence of multiple cell phones; (4) energy drinks and caffeinated beverages in the vehicle; (5) unusual travel plans; and (6) inconsistent statements about where he had been. We address each factor in turn.” Here, they all added up to reasonable suspicion on the totality. United States v. Komsonekeo, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29675 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021):
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA10: RS from excessive nervousness, air freshener, multiple cell phones, energy drinks and caffeinated beverages, unusual travel plans, and inconsistent statements about where he had been
5 am knock-and-talk with repeated entries to the property and entreaties to get plaintiff to come out of the house violated the clearly established law of Jardines. French v. Merrill, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29679 (1st Cir. Oct. 1, 2021):
Plaintiff was arrested for domestic violence, asserting he was defending himself. When the state charges were dropped, he sued the officer. His version of the facts do not unequivocally support self-defense or defense of premises, so the officer gets qualified immunity. Karamanoglu v. Town of Yarmouth, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29561 (1st Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).
“[W]e hold that the BAC test of the defendant’s blood sample was not a search within the meaning of Part I, Article 19.” An alleged drunk driver has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her BAC. State v. Almeida, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 146 (Sept. 29, 2021).
Defendant only argued lack of probable cause in his motion to suppress, and he did not argue staleness. The court considers it anyway as a part of the probable cause analysis and finds that there was. State v. Corn, 2021-Ohio-3444, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3376 (9th Dist. Sept. 30, 2021).* (Staleness is a part of the probable cause analysis, but the court could have just as easily declined to get to that question because of waiver.)
“Based on our case law and considering the totality of the circumstances, we cannot find that Kiefer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests to Dye. Based on the evidence and testimony in the record, we are left with Kiefer’s observations that Dye’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot (at 4:30 a.m.), and his testimony that Dye had a ‘strong’ odor of alcohol upon him, which he noticed when he ‘got close to [Dye]’ to perform a pat-down. As discussed above, there is no competent, credible evidence to suggest that Dye’s speech was slurred at any point before Kiefer began to administer the field sobriety tests. Additionally, there were no other indicia of impairment—such as erratic driving, admission to drinking alcohol, stumbling, falling, or fumbling for paperwork—that could support Kiefer’s administration of field sobriety tests.” State v. Dye, 2021-Ohio-3513, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 3363 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2021).
In this murder case, the police entered for a well being check, and certain evidence was in plain view. The court finds the emergency justification was not exceeded and that which was seized was in plain view. People v. McCall, 2021 IL App (1st) 172105, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 546 (Sept. 30, 2021).*
There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest for second degree murder. The affidavit need only show probable cause for some crime, and technical deficiencies don’t matter. United States v. Felix, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188274 (D.Vt. Sept. 30, 2021):
“Librarian Winters’ request to see Ivy’s legal documents to verify that he had upcoming deadlines also serves the DOC’s interest in institutional order and management of resources by balancing an individual inmate’s need for additional law library time with the ability of all inmates to use the law library. The Constitution affords prison administrators significant discretion regarding prison regulation and administration. See, e.g., Jones v. N. Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 126 (1977) (‘Because the realities of running a penal institution are complex and difficult, we have also recognized the wide-ranging deference to be accorded the decisions of prison administrators.’).” Ivy v. Wetzal, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187880 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 30, 2021).
“[O]fficers lawfully initiated a traffic stop after witnessing two traffic violations. And, again like in Franklin, officers detected the odor of marijuana when they approached the stopped vehicle. Contrary to Apple’s assertions, the officers’ testimonies are corroborated by the several pieces of loose marijuana found during the later search. Though this later-analyzed marijuana may have been higher in CBD content (compared to THC), the marijuana odor sensed by the officers was both raw and burnt. In other words, even assuming high-CBD-content marijuana has a less-pungent scent, high-potency marijuana in terms of THC could have been the cause of the strong burnt marijuana aroma encountered by officers.” United States v. Apple, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188167 (S.D.Ind. Sept. 30, 2021).*
Posted inPlain view, feel, smell, Prison and jail searches|Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Prison law librarians can examine papers to determine whether there’s a litigation deadline to manage library access
The three defendants filed untimely motions to suppress under the scheduling order; two were in the days before the trial and the third was during the trial. They were fact intensive and would have required a hearing. “Even on appeal, Beasley does not identify good cause for his late motion, and no justification is apparent from the record. We accordingly affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress as untimely. See Adame, 827 F.3d at 647. We do not reach the merits or the need for a hearing.” United States v. Vizcarra-Millan, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29498 (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).
Defendant’s guilty plea was a waiver of the denial of his motion to suppress, and there was no conditional plea. United States v. Brown, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29497 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).*
Posted inMotion to suppress, Waiver|Comments Off on CA7: Untimely filed suppression motion is waived
As to testimony about an overheard phone call from the police station: “While conceding that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone conversation with his aunt, defendant maintains that such evidence was inadmissible because the police were statutorily required to ensure that the conversation was private. We reject this claim.” People v. Doehring, 2021 IL App (1st) 190420, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 538 (Sept. 30, 2021).
There was arguable probable cause for defendant committing domestic battery. Karamanoglu v. Town of Yarmouth, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29561 (1st Cir. Sept. 30, 2021).*
RawStory: FBI used secret Google tracking data to nab Capitol rioters by John Wright (“Federal prosecutors have cited secretive ‘geofence’ warrants — which allow law enforcement to pinpoint cell-phone users’ precise locations over time — in 45 Capitol riot cases, including six where suspects had not previously been identified.”)
Posted ingeofence|Comments Off on RawStory: FBI used secret Google tracking data to nab Capitol rioters
"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.
