“The Court credits Officer Pompeo’s testimony because he offered a version of events that is not only plausible but also aligns with the respective motivations of law enforcement and Ms. Rodriguez, in light of other, undisputed facts surrounding the events of March 21, 2019.” The officer’s version makes sense; the defense witness’s version is completely implausible that the officer would enter alone and endanger his own safety. United States v. Johnson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90143 (D. N.J. May 22, 2020).*
A state window tint violation (backed up by the officer’s bodycam) justified defendant’s stop. United States v. Davis, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16621 (11th Cir. May 26, 2020).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.N.J.: How this case determined credibility of the witnesses
An open container violation is an offense justifying a search of a vehicle for more. United States v. Hoskins, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90256 (E.D. Wis. May 22, 2020).*
The stop reached the level of reasonable suspicion before dispatch responded, and this was all within the initial stop. United States v. Wilson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16405 (3d Cir. May 22, 2020).*
Posted inCell phones, Privileges, Warrant execution|Comments Off on techdirt: On The Same Day The FBI Claimed No Vendor Could Crack IPhones, Another Way To Crack IPhones Made The News
Defendant’s maybe nodding her head yes was contrary to her words on the dashcam video. There was no unequivocal voluntary consent. State v. Casi, 2020-Ohio-3063, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 2010 (6th Dist. May 22, 2020).
“Although the video of Vaclavik’s encounter with Adams-absent sound-did not establish that Adams affirmatively responded to Vaclavik’s request for consent to search, Adams’s recorded conduct supported an inference that he voluntarily consented to the search.” Adams v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4017 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg May 21, 2020).*
Posted inConsent|Comments Off on OH6: State didn’t show unequivocal consent on dashcam video
“Cell phones provide access to an immense array of private information, much of which is stored in the Cloud or on sites controlled by third parties. As such, the United States Supreme Court concluded in Riley v. California that people have uniquely broad expectations of privacy in cell phones and, therefore, a warrant is generally required to search them. 573 U.S. 373, 393-94, 401 (2014). In the wake of Riley, we are asked to decide whether Arizona’s standard conditions of probation, which permit warrantless searches of a probationer’s ‘property,’ apply to cell phones. We hold they do. We further hold that the search here was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and therefore compliant with the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Lietzau, 2020 Ariz. LEXIS 139 (May 22, 2020) (If a search of the home is reasonable, why not a cell phone? Depends on the intrusiveness.):
EFF: COVID-19 Patients’ Right to Privacy Against Quarantine Surveillance by Adam Schwartz (“Governments around the world are using surveillance technologies to monitor whether COVID-19 patients are complying with instructions to quarantine at home. These include GPS ankle shackles, phone apps that track location, and phone apps that require patients to periodically take quarantine selfies and send them to government monitors.”)
The state conceded error that the affidavit for defendant’s blood search warrant should not have been admitted into evidence at trial. (Defendant objected to a paragraph of hearsay.) It was, however, harmless error and merely cumulative to what the officer already testifed to. Sanchez v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 4014 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg (May 21, 2020).
Search of defendant’s outgoing mail from a jail was reasonable. He was suspected of contacting witnesses. United States v. Mayer, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89226 (D. Minn. Apr. 14, 2020).
A probable cause search of a vehicle includes any hidden compartments. Here, they were apparent to the officers. People v. Kalabakas, 2020 NY Slip Op 02954, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066 (3d Dept. May 21, 2020).
Posted inAutomobile exception|Comments Off on NY3: With PC and automobile exception, any hidden compartment can be searched
The driver of a car presumptively has the apparent authority to consent to its search even though he didn’t own it. People v. Quintanilla, 2020 Guam LEXIS 8 (May 21, 2020).
Two new and unused meth pipes in defendant’s glove compartment was reasonable suspicion but not probable cause. State v. Sunderman, 304 Ore. App. 329 (May 20, 2020).*
Under Rodriguez, “[a]s we have explained, having Barker sit in the patrol car was within ‘[t]he reasonable scope of the initial traffic stop’ itself. … The stop was not extended until the officer conducted a search, but by then, probable cause existed. … With no illegal seizure, there was no illegal search.” United States v. Barker, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16205 (8th Cir. May 21, 2020).
“We conclude that Officer Mikowski abandoned the purpose of the traffic stop when he spoke with Deputy Kindelberger, separately moved and seated Jacobsen and Roest on the curb, and had a casual conversation with Roest in order to facilitate a drug dog sniff unsupported by reasonable suspicion. This Court recently explained that, pursuant to Rodriguez, ‘an abandonment occurs when officers deviate from the purpose of the traffic mission in order to investigate, or engage in safety measures aimed at investigating crimes unrelated to roadway safety for which the officers lack reasonable suspicion.’ State v. Still, 166 Idaho 351, 356, 458 P.3d 220, 225 (Ct. App. 2019).” State v. Jacobsen, 2020 Ida. App. LEXIS 49 (May 20, 2020).
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on Two on delay under Rodriguez, one reasonable, one unreasonable
A four day delay between the seizure of defendant’s car and obtaining a search warrant for it unreasonably infringed on defendant’s possessory interest in the car. The exclusionary rule should be applied here because the delay was all the actions of the police in being dilatory. And, this is so even though a search warrant may not have even been necessary for the search. United States v. Bumphus, 2020 D.C. App. LEXIS 179 (May 21, 2020):
Posted inReasonableness, Seizure, Warrant execution|Comments Off on D.C.: Four day delay in getting SW for car and then searching it was unreasonable and interfered with def’s possessory interests
A hospital drawing blood was not acting as an agent of the state. People v. Deroo, 2020 IL App (3d) 170163, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 313 (May 20, 2020).
Defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment for seizure of a sheep skull taken from a national park that wasn’t part of the indictment is denied. The skull was the focus of a federal warrant and there was a state warrant, too, but there was no charge for the skull. United States v. McReynolds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88631 (D. Ariz. May 20, 2020).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 case brought over his state case while his state criminal case was pending about that case is barred by abstention because it attempts to interfere with state proceedings. Riley v. Assistant State Atty. Frederick, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88923 (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2020).*
The search warrant here was directed to local police officers, the state police, and a special operations group of the sheriff’s office which included correctional officers which were not LEOs capable of executing warrants. Their inclusion didn’t void the warrant. People v. Ward, 2020 NY Slip Op 02943, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016 (2d Dept. May 20, 2020).
The officer here had reasonable suspicion to talk to defendant from seeing what was apparently a bag of crack sitting in his lap. The search of defendant’s car was by consent, and the search of his person and other belongings was justified as a search incident. United States v. Mosley, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16095 (3d Cir. May 20, 2020).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Warrant execution|Comments Off on NY2: Inclusion of some unauthorized persons in the list of those to execute the SW doesn’t void it
Defendant’s motion to suppress should not have been granted for his failure to plead a violation of the constitution or law. State v. Leatherwood, 2020-Ohio-3012, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1956 (9th Dist. May 20, 2020):
Posted inBurden of pleading|Comments Off on OH9: Def’s motion to suppress should not have been granted for his failure to plead a violation of the constitution or law
Business Insider: Civil liberties groups are urging Congress to block the FBI from viewing Americans’ web-browsing history without a warrant by Aaron Holmes (“More than 50 groups from across the political spectrum urged lawmakers to block legislation that would let the FBI see American’s browsing and search history without a warrant in a letter this week. The Senate last week passed a reauthorization of the Patriot Act that included language from Mitch McConnell granting the FBI authority to see web-browsing records without a warrant.”)
Posted inComputer and cloud searches, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on Business Insider: Civil liberties groups are urging Congress to block the FBI from viewing Americans’ web-browsing history without a warrant
Officers had probable cause to arrest for possession of marijuana despite the fact it later turned out he was innocent of possession. The inventory of his backpack was still valid. United States v. Bignon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15972 (2d Cir. May 19, 2020).
“[W]e conclude that probable cause existed to arrest petitioner for obstructing official business. Consequently, counsel’s failure to raise probable cause as defense does not constitute ineffective assistance because petitioner did not suffer prejudice.” Rarick v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 16020 (6th Cir. May 19, 2020).*
The police violated a longstanding state constitutional prohibition of a knock-and-talk seeking consent to enter a home without a warning of a right to refuse. In addition, a factual stipulation for the suppression hearing couldn’t be used by the state at trial over objection under Simmons, a 51 year old rule at the time of the trial. Virgil v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 314 (May 20, 2020):
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on AR: State const’l requirement of right to refuse consent on knock-and-talk reaffirmed; suppression hearing stipulation can’t be used at trial
CSLI information obtained by warrant still requires a witness to explain them for confrontation purposes. State v. Lawson, 2020-Ohio-3004, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1952 (10th Dist. May 19, 2020).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress CSLI three years before Carpenter. Moreover, it was obtained by search warrant. United States v. Curry, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87783 (E.D. Mich. May 19, 2020).*
2254 petitioner can’t raise his Fourth Amendment in habeas. It was raised at trial and the subject of his direct appeal. Biggs v. Inch, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87937 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 3, 2020).*
The USMS observing defendant’s arrest in the Dominican Republic wasn’t enough to make the actions of the arresting officers agents of the United States. United States v. Acevedo-Martinez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87958 (D. P.R. May 18, 2020):
It was not clearly established that a County of Riverside violation of allegedly delaying a probable cause determination to gather more evidence was subject to suppression. Even Riverside doesn’t say that it is. Thus, the district court’s determination counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it was not a violation of clearly established law for 2254 purposes. Wooten v. Montgomery, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15954 (9th Cir. May 19, 2020):
"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.
