During a traffic stop, asking for identification and about travel plans and checking the VIN is reasonable under N.Y. v. Class. United States v. Sanchez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223586 (D.N.M. Sep. 30, 2026).
Defendant was a passenger in a traffic stop and she was handcuffed and believed she was detained since the driver was told that. Miranda applies. Traffic detainees are not normally handcuffed. United States v. Calvert, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223163 (N.D. Iowa Sep. 30, 2026).*
2255 petitioner doesn’t show that raising his Fourth Amendment issue sooner would have changed the outcome. United States v. Abdi, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223027 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 30, 2026).*
Even though the officer couldn’t see the driver because of window tint, under Glover it was still reasonable to assume the registered owner was the driver. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220561 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 28, 2026).
Possession of firearms is an ongoing crime, not an episodic one, so the warrant was not stale. United States v. Jefferson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219784 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2026).
The information in the affidavit for warrant was sufficient to show a fair probability drugs would be found, and it was not stale. The trial court erred in suppressing. State v. Melton, 2026 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 39 (Sep. 25, 2026).*
By the time the traffic officer asked for consent he had reasonable suspicion. United States v. Koroma, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220887 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Touching the fog line is reason for a stop. McGraw v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 323 (Sep. 28, 2026).*
Courthouse News Service: Privacy class action over genetic data moves forward by Edvard Pettersson (“A federal judge on Wednesday waved portions of a class action by people who say a San Diego-based operator of a genealogical research site allowed third parties, including Meta and law enforcement, access to their DNA profile without their permission. U.S. District Judge James Simmons Jr. partially denied a motion to dismiss the claims by Verogen Inc. and Qiagen NV, a European multinational that acquired GEDmatch.com in 2023. The judge said the plaintiffs can proceed with their claims that pertain to a purported technical loophole in GEDmatch’s PRO platform, which allowed law enforcement users to circumvent the opt-out privacy setting and run comparisons against profiles of users who had specifically restricted such access.”)
Posted inDNA, Third Party Doctrine|Comments Off on CNS: Privacy class action over genetic data moves forward
There was no probable cause for defendant’s arrest just because he was around others there was probable cause for. United States v. Sentael, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223598 (D. Or. Sep. 30, 2026)*:
Posted inProbable cause|Comments Off on D.Or.: “a person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.” Ybarra
“Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Oakden and Reynolds’s ‘unlawful access to private medical information’ violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. FAC at 4. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (‘The plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support the plaintiff’s claim.’). Further, Plaintiff ‘has not shown that [her] right to the privacy of [her] medical information … is protected by the Fourth Amendment.’ Harris v. Combs, 2024 WL 324513, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2024), appeal dismissed, 2025 WL 2171135 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025). Therefore, the FAC fails to state a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation.” Hendrix v. Cal. Dep’t of Tax & Fee Admin., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222267 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2026).
Reasonable suspicion doesn’t even require that the officer has to articulate what crime is happening or about to happen. Williams v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 9076 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Sep. 29, 2026):
Plaintiff was subjected to an electronic body scan that led to a body cavity search with a warrant for an apparent mass inside him. This search was reasonable. Brown v. Suess, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220823 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2026).
Facial biometric scans of inmates in a jail violate no privacy interest. Jones v. Mata, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220261 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 24, 2026).
A suspicionless GPS search condition for a probationer was reasonable. United States v. Taplin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220219 (D. Or. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Given the trial court found the officer not credible, on these facts, the order of suppression is affirmed. State v. Caughenbaugh, 2026-Ohio-3809 (5th Dist. Sep. 25, 2026).*
The fact there were ex parte communications with a judge about a wiretap warrant doesn’t require recusal of the judge. United States v. Kobayashi, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220121 (D. Haw. Sep. 28, 2026).
Plaintiff can’t show causation for his alleged injury from excessive force, so summary judgment for the officer. Brown v. Inglehart, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219722 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit over his arrest is barred by Younger abstention because he can raise all those issues in state court first. Anderson v. Price, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219763 (W.D.Ark. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Plaintiff plausibly alleged a bogus traffic stop and so the frisk lacked reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. This is clearly established law. Rosales v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29016 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026). (Reason article here.)
Any possible error in finding defendant’s firearm under the public safety exception to Miranda was harmless. State v. Crawford, 2026 MT 225 (Sep. 22, 2026).*
“We agree with the issuing judge that both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test were satisfied by the affidavit in this case. We therefore affirm the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause and the issuance of the warrant to search Defendant’s home, and reverse the district court’s contrary conclusion.” There was a Franks challenge, too, and, while there were no good findings on that from the trial court, the court of appeals independently doesn’t find them material to probable cause. State v. Sneed, 2026 N.M. App. LEXIS 69 (Sep. 28, 2026).*
Investigators in Pennsylvania could rely on another investigator at UCLA and combine their information for probable cause. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29575 (3d Cir. Sep. 25, 2026).
Petitioner’s 2255 Franks challenge fails to “plausibly allege” falsity. Godette v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219305 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 25, 2026).*
“[O]fficers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching Medrano with their weapons drawn and ready to use. While the Officers used a high level of force, they reasonably believed that Medrano may have committed multiple serious offenses, posed a threat to their safety, and was actively on the run from a felony arrest warrant and may again attempt to flee. Accordingly, the Officers’ use of force under these circumstances was reasonable and did not violate Medrano’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Medrano v. Acosta, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29486 (9th Cir. Sep. 25, 2026).*
Reason: Border Agents Search Phones Without Warrants. This Case Asks the Supreme Court if That’s Constitutional by Tosin Akintola (“Federal appeals courts differ on whether the Fourth Amendment protects your cellphone at the border. A Texas lawyer is asking the Supreme Court to settle it.”) (“What started as a ‘narrow constitutional exception’ now ‘threatens to swallow the protection it was meant only to qualify,’ according to an amicus brief filed last week by the Cato Institute asking the Supreme Court to reconsider a petition about warrantless searches of Americans at the border. The petitioner is George Anibowei, a Texas-based immigration attorney who has, on five separate occasions when traveling internationally, been stopped and had his phone searched at the border by federal agents. The law gives agents the authority to seize and search property—including cellphones and other electronic devices—without a warrant and without suspicion when crossing a border. Federal courts have upheld this policy under the border search exception—which defers to the sovereign’s right to protect itself and requires no warrant, probable cause, or suspicion for a search—and have extended the exception to include the contents of a person’s cellphone.”) Probability of a cert grant? High.
Posted inBorder search, Cell phones|Comments Off on Reason: Border Agents Search Phones Without Warrants. This Case Asks the Supreme Court if That’s Constitutional
The Economist: Why licence-plate readers are angering Americans (“ALPRs are not new: local governments have long used them to collect tolls and enforce traffic laws. More recently, activists on the left protested against their use by federal immigration authorities. Donald Trump, on the other hand, says he likes Flock because it helps law enforcement. Yet the uproar has escalated quickly, echoing the outcry over data centres. ALPRs and data centres have both scaled up quickly and become symbols of anxiety about AI … Flock claims to have aided 10,000 missing-person cases last year. But its network of ALPRs ‘goes far beyond what people previously understood the tools to be’, argues Melissa Owen of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers. Cops do not need warrants to look up plates, and state laws vary on how officers log searches, how long data can be stored and whether footage can be sent to other states.”)
A typo in the affidavit for warrant including murder as one of the crimes under investigation could be overlooked. United States v. Pokorny, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217899 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2026).
Patdown searches are a part of institutional living for civilly committed SVPs. Welsh v. Management & Training, Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217569 (N.D. Tex. July 29, 2026).*
“[T]he court determined that Brice was entitled to qualified immunity because Hecke failed to identify precedent clearly establishing that a forensic examiner violates the Fourth Amendment by relying on a signed attestation from another officer affirming the legality of a search. The court found further support for this conclusion under the collective knowledge doctrine, which permits law-enforcement officers to rely on facts supplied by other officers to support a search or arrest of a suspect even if the officer himself lacks firsthand knowledge of facts that amount to requisite level of suspicion.” Hecke v. Comm’r of Ind. State Police, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29421 (7th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026).*
The exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone pending getting a warrant was risk of destruction of evidence. State v. Laflex, 2026 Minn. LEXIS 592 (Sep. 23, 2026).
Furtive movements add to reasonable suspicion. Ex parte Lucio, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 905 n. 303 (Sep. 24, 2026).
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention aside from the traffic stop based on collective knowledge he was attempting to purchase drugs. The dog sniff thereafter was reasonable. United States v. French, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217063 (E.D. La. Sep. 24, 2026).*
US Postal Inspectors checked the addresses on the package which proved likely bogus, and that gave reasonable suspicion to remove it from the mail stream for a dog sniff. State v. Wescott, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 446 (Sep. 18, 2026).*
“We hold that the use of the cell-site simulator constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. We conclude, however, that the detectives are entitled to qualified immunity and state law public official immunity, and that the Baltimore City Police Department cannot be held liable for the violation of Andrews’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Andrews v. Balt. City Police Dep’t, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29401 (4th Cir. Sep. 24, 2026):
Bailbonding agent’s bounty hunters were not state actors in capturing defendant and searching his car. State v. Dragg, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 637 (Sep. 24, 2026).
Defendant’s post-conviction petition argues defense counsel applied the wrong standard of review but it doesn’t matter because he would lose anyway. Kim v. Brown, 2026 Ore. App. LEXIS 1472 (Sep. 10, 2026).*
The additional ¾ hour to 2 hours to get a search warrant for defendant’s blood here was exigency. State v. Adams, 2026 Ore. App. LEXIS 1427 (Sep. 23, 2026).*
Defendant was in custody at the time he was told to raise his seat cushion. It wasn’t voluntary consent–it was acquiescence to authority. United States v. Barron, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29273 (9th Cir. Sep. 24, 2026).*
"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.
