A search warrant isn’t required for police to obtain a probationer’s GPS records from the PO. United States v. Jackson, 214 A.3d 464 (D.C. 2019). Crocker v. United States, 2021 D.C. App. LEXIS 167 (July 1, 2021).
The officers did not see a hand-to-hand transaction and other things that supported reasonable suspicion, but, for the first time, the officer saw “counter surveillance” after the meet, and that piqued the officer’s interest and rose to reasonable suspicion. State v. Brown, 2021-Ohio-2193, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 2219 (1st Dist. June 30, 2021).*
The warrant for the premises permitted a search of vehicles on the premises. And then there’s the good faith exception, too. United States v. Feroben, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122552 (W.D. La. May 25, 2021).*
Contemnor was in a grand jury proceeding, and he was holding his cell phone like he was recording it. Based on witness reports, a contempt order issued and the phone was seized. The court issued an order authorizing it be searched. His Fourth Amendment claim fails. Nothing from the phone was used in the contempt proceeding, and, even if it had been, it would be harmless on this record. [The opinion doesn’t even suggest there was a Fourth Amendment violation; court order = warrant; observations = PC.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings Contempt – Jones, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 1007 (La. App. 2 Cir. June 30, 2021).*
“The Court finds that the affiant’s omission of these two deals — which took place months before the search warrant affidavit was signed — was neither reckless nor intentional, and certainly not similar to the omissions and misstatements outlined in the caselaw mentioned above.” United States v. Briggs, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122015 (D. Haw. June 30, 2021).*
Posted inCell phones, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on LA2: Cell phone seizure and search moot where nothing used in court
Police arrived at a crowd on a parking lot in a high crime area. People were drinking in public and there was the smell of marijuana in the air, but none of that had anything to do with defendant. Thus, they had no reasonable suspicion for a detention and frisk of defendant. His motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Mosby, 2021-Ohio-2255, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 2199 (6th Dist. June 30, 2021).
Defendant failed to show she was in custody at the time she made voluntary statements. Wexler v. State, 2021 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 630 (June 30, 2021).*
Defendant has no post-conviction IAC search claim because he shows no standing to contest the search. State v. Culberson, 2021-Ohio-2214, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 2174 (2d Dist. June 30, 2021).*
“Our task is to determine whether those facts, when viewed in their totality, objectively support Boyd’s suspicion that defendant had engaged in a drug transaction. We conclude that, although none of the facts articulated by Boyd are sufficient on their own, when viewed in their totality, the facts known to Boyd give rise to reasonable suspicion.” State v. Hollins, 312 Or. App. 682, 2021 Ore. App. LEXIS 901 (June 30, 2021).*
Defendant’s failure to object to the R&R on a search claim was waiver of the issue for appeal. United States v. Maldonado-Peña, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19508 (1st Cir. June 30, 2021).
Motorist passed out at the wheel and the car apparently out of gas was reasonable suspicion. Blocking the car was not an invasion of freedom here. United States v. Schmidlkofer, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121161 (D. Alaska June 29, 2021).*
The officer making the stop developed other information from other officers backing up and that collectively was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. United States v. Garcia, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121046 (N.D. Ga. June 10, 2021).*
There was reasonable suspicion to expand the investigation from a car accident to a DUI investigation. State v. Bailey, 2021 MT 157, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 589 (June 29, 2021).*
“In this case, the Sheriff’s Office detectives acted by the book.” The exclusionary rule would not be applied to police officers finding a prior download of data in a police database and using it to connect defendant to this homicide. State v. Burch, 2021 WI 68, 2021 Wisc. LEXIS 103 (June 29, 2021):
“Lindsey argues that there was no probable cause to believe there was evidence of drug dealing on the cellphones because the affidavit offered ‘no direct evidence’ that the phones would contain evidence of any drug dealing and the ‘indirect’ evidence was not strong enough to create a fair inference that there would be evidence of drug dealing on the cellphones. We disagree. There was substantial evidence presented in the warrant application and supporting affidavit that Lindsey had been engaged in drug dealing and that he had delivered drugs in his car to various locations. The affidavit also explained that Lindsey had more than one cellphone and that it is common for drug dealers to use multiple cellphones to conceal their drug business. This was enough to support a fair inference that the cellphones would contain evidence of drug dealing.” United States v. Lindsey, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19265 (1st Cir. June 29, 2021).
Defendant didn’t have standing to challenge a search of his girlfriend’s mother’s house where he kept the evidence. Trial testimony might have changed the view on that, at least for him, but the court finds her consent and reliance on her authority over her own house enough too. People v. McMorris, 2021 NY Slip Op 04111, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4215 (1st Dept. June 29, 2021).*
“The officers indisputably had probable cause to search Short’s vehicle, and an easily repairable flat tire did not cause the vehicle to lose its inherent mobility.” United States v. Short, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19242 (8th Cir. June 29, 2021).
A pole barn 500′ behind a house was not on the curtilage. The doors were open and lights were on and the officer called out for a person to talk to before coming in. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy there. State v. Barlow, 2021-Ohio-2191, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 2145 (June 29, 2021).
An open container in a car is probable cause. United States v. Jackson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120528 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2021).*
The target does not assert standing to challenge the search warrant for this Facebook account, which he must. In re Information Associated with One Account Stored at Premises Controlled by Facebook, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120036 (D.D.C. June 4, 2021).
Entering and leaving premises during a controlled buy is part of probable cause. United States v. Miles, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120363 (S.D. Ind. June 28, 2021).*
Officers had probable cause to believe that electronic devices with child pornography on them were in defendant’s vehicle traveling with him. They’d already not found them in other places. United States v. Keck, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19240 (8th Cir. June 29, 2021).*
Officers had probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for a sexual assault charge based on the totality of information, even though charges were later dismissed. Further later investigation cast doubt, but the officers weren’t reckless. Walz v. Randall, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19244 (8th Cir. June 29, 2021):
Dismissal is not the remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Colburn, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119756 (D. Mass. June 25, 2021).
The CI “was a citizen informant. He volunteered information to dispatch and Mortensen without wanting anything in return for the information he provided. Further, he was not at risk or in fear of going to jail. Not only is Towes’ identity easily ascertainable, but Mortensen testified that he personally knew Towes from prior community contacts. Accordingly, the information being provided by Towes has a high indicia of reliability and is presumed reliable.” State v. Van Der Heever, 2021 ND 116, 2021 N.D. LEXIS 113 (June 25, 2021)
Defendant made a Fourth Amendment and state law challenge to text messages. They were later produced and came in at trial unobjected to. The probable cause challenge is waived. Commonwealth v. Louis, 2021 Mass. LEXIS 356 (June 28, 2021).
“Wilhite also claimed that Defendants’ conduct violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. But Wilhite does not so much as cite the Fourth Amendment on appeal, so we consider that aspect of her claims abandoned.” Wilhite v. Harvey, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19172 (5th Cir. June 28, 2021).*
Posted inWaiver|Comments Off on D.Mass.: Dismissal of criminal case not remedy for 4A violation
Plaintiff’s false evidence claim arises from the arrest or release from detention, and here it is time barred. His release on detention was not a separate Fourth Amendment seizure. Smith v. City of Chi., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19136 (7th Cir. June 28, 2021).*
Plaintiff showed enough to survive summary judgment that handcuffs were too tight and caused an injury. The District Court improperly relied on the dashcam because it didn’t show much of this. Hughey v. Easlick, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19130 (6th Cir. June 28, 2021).*
A gun of a felon and drug in plain view were probable cause to arrest defendant in his own home. Then he consented to a search of his cell phone. United States v. McFadden, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119667 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2021).*
Defendant’s purse was not in the car at the time probable cause arose for the automobile exception to apply. Therefore, it did not apply to her purse. State v. Maloney, 2021 Ida. LEXIS 117 (June 28, 2021).
“It is unnecessary for us to address Priest’s argument that the force used by Grazier and Fenwick was excessive under the Fourth Amendment because regardless, Priest fails to show that Grazier and Fenwick violated clearly established law by using force as they did to bring him under control. … This is so because Priest offers no evidence genuinely to dispute the officers’ evidence that they perceived Priest to be resisting arrest when they employed the force at issue. We examine each use of force in turn.” Priest v. Grazier, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19029 (5th Cir. June 25, 2021).*
Posted inDigital privacy, DNA|Comments Off on WaPo: A student’s rape went unsolved for 14 years. Police say the suspect gave his DNA to a genealogy database.
“Because it is unclear in this excessive force case whether the Eighth Circuit incorrectly thought the use of a prone restraint is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to give the lower court the opportunity in the first instance to employ the careful, context-specific analysis required by this court’s excessive force precedent.” [ScotusBlog summary] Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 20-391 (U.S. June 28, 2021) (per curiam, 6-3):
Posted inExcessive force|Comments Off on SCOTUS: CA8 reversed for clarity on whether a prone restraint is constitutional per se if suspect is not resisting
“This case presents what appears to be an issue of first impression: Whether, following Rodriguez and Landeros, an officer who has reasonable suspicion that the driver of a vehicle has committed an arrestable offense (as opposed to a traffic infraction) may prolong a stop for a reasonable amount of time to inquire into the identity of a passenger absent independent reasonable suspicion that the passenger has committed a criminal offense. As discussed below, the Court answers this question in the affirmative. Specifically, the Court holds that where there is reasonable suspicion that the driver of a vehicle has engaged in an arrestable offense, determining whether the vehicle can be turned over to a passenger becomes part of the mission of the stop, and the officer may thus prolong the stop for a reasonable period of time to inquire into the passenger’s identity. Accordingly, in the present case, the officer’s prolonging the stop for less than 40 seconds to inquire into the identity of the passenger—Donald Jay—did not run afoul the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Jay, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119282 (D. Idaho June 24, 2021).
Defendant’s 2255’s Fourth Amendment IAC claim fails to show either standing or a lack of probable cause for the search. United States v. Perry, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118732 (D. Minn. June 23, 2021).*
Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on Carpenter decided after his trial is denied. United States v. Smith, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119153 (E.D. N.Y. June 25, 2021).*
Posted inReasonableness|Comments Off on D.Idaho: Officer can inquire of passenger’s history when contemplating turning over vehicle to passenger on driver’s arrest
In this employee drug testing case, the employer wrongly classified two employees as “safety sensitive.” “Courts that have considered whether a position was ‘safety sensitive’ for purposes of satisfying Fourth Amendment or statutory protections likewise focus on the specific requirements of the job rather than on the environment within which the employee works.” Dix v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, Inc., 2021 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 89 (June 25, 2021). The introduction section:
Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his wheelchair where he’d hidden a gun. The automobile exception doesn’t apply to wheelchairs, and neither does Chadwick on the locked footlocker. The gun was seen by Walmart employees who called the police. Defendant was a felon in possession. United States v. Cunningham, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118496 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 29, 2021) (the court notes it could find no case like it).
“In reviewing the record, we find that the evidence in this case is sufficient to show that the officers’ decision to conduct the inventory search of appellant’s vehicle was made in good faith, following the lawful arrest of appellant and his passenger, and was in accordance with police department policy. Accordingly, we find that the officers’ inventory search was lawful.” State v. Upchurch, 2021-Ohio-2143, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 2102 (6th Dist. June 25, 2021).*
There is no constitutional right to pre-enforcement challenge to an OSHA administrative warrant. “FFG contends that it has the constitutional right to a pre-execution challenge of OSHA’s warrant. [Doc. 14 at 4-5]. After a review of the record, the Court finds that Judge Fuller’s invocation of and reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Trinity Marine, supra, was sound. [R&R at 3-5]. The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion in Trinity Marine is quite clear – it rejected the ‘claim that there is a constitutional right … to contest an administrative warrant’s validity in federal court before its execution,’ concluding instead that ‘there is no constitutional right to a pre-execution contempt hearing.’ 512 F.3d at 202. FFG’s arguments against following Trinity Marine are unconvincing, and the Court agrees with Judge Fuller that its reasoning applies with ‘equal force’ here. [R&R at 5 & n.4].” United States v. Foundation Food Groups, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118529 (N.D. Ga. June 8, 2021).
Posted inAdministrative search|Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No constitutional right to pre-enforcement challenge to an OSHA administrative warrant
"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.
