Possession of an unauthorized smartphone was a violation of defendant’s probation and provided reasonable suspicion for a search of the phone. Aside from the legitimate reasons for having a smartphone, “[c]onsidering that a smartphone is often used as an instrumentality of the very offense for which the Defendant was on probation, this knowledge rendered Gschlecht’s possession of such a device even more suspicious.” United States v. Gschlecht, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57963 (D. Conn. Apr. 2, 2020).
There was probable cause for the search of cell phones and computers seized. Although not mentioned in the oral ruling, the good faith exception applies for a multitude of reasons. United States v. Cabrera, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57751 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55789 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2020).*
Posted inCell phones, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on D.Conn.: Possession of an unauthorized smartphone was RS and justified its search
Plaintiff is a prisoner who bloodied a guard. He consented to a blood draw to be tested for HIV, but they also tested for Hep C. He sued over the latter. They get qualified immunity. There’s no clearly established law that this test was unreasonable once they already had his blood. “Finally, Harris contends that the district court wrongly entered judgment for the defendants because their violation of the Department of Corrections’ blood test policy creates an independent federal cause of action. Harris is mistaken, however, as a violation of a state policy by itself does not give rise to a constitutional claim. See Tucker v. City of Chi., 907 F.3d 487, 494 (7th Cir. 2018).” Harris v. Manlove, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10431 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2020).*
Defendant made a sufficient showing that his consent to the BAC test was not voluntary. Remanded for a full hearing on voluntariness. Melton v. State, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 227 (Apr. 2, 2020).*
A search warrant to seize a car implicitly includes seizing the keys to it. “Thiel also maintains that Baker and Minor went too far in executing the second warrant when they seized antique handguns, handguns in unopened boxes, and gun holsters. We disagree. That warrant authorized officers to seize ‘any and all handguns,’ so we think it reasonable for officers to seize even antique guns and guns in unopened boxes.” Thiel v. Korte, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10404 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2020).
A witness said defendant shot his two roommates. Police came to the scene and he told them that defendant told him to put his son down so he could be shot, too. This was probable cause, and the alleged omissions or false statements in the search warrant affidavit were not material. Commonwealth v. Andre, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 188 (Apr. 2, 2020).*
Three days of CSLI by order in 2011 would be unreasonable under Carpenter, but the good faith exception applies. United States v. Miller, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10374 (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2020)* (no link).
A 911 call reported that defendant pointed a gun at two people and threatened them in his house. Responding, they talked to the victims outside. They entered to do a protective sweep for the weapon, and saw drugs. They got a search warrant from that and more were found. The protective sweep and search warrant were valid. The body cam video was important. United States v. Griffin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10382 (11th Cir. Apr. 2, 2020).
“Upon review, as stated above, probable cause for the search warrant was based on evidence of drug trafficking provided by a confidential source and found during a trash pull. We find that this evidence alone, even without consideration of the second trash pull or evidence that Appellant’s driver’s license listed 440 Dryden as his address, was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” The warrant for drugs was not overbroad. Defendant also raised one aspect of probable cause for the first time in his reply brief, and that’s waived. State v. Franklin, 2020-Ohio-1263, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1199 (5th Dist. Mar. 30, 2020).*
The trial judge having signed a search warrant wasn’t grounds to recuse at trial. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising it. The validity of the search wasn’t even an issue. State v. Ray, 2020-Ohio-1265, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1197 (5th Dist. Mar. 27, 2020).
Defendant’s stop was based on an arrest warrant for him. The search incident to the arrest produced drugs from his person. The arrest justified an inventory. United States v. Thomas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57498 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 4, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55897 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2020).*
Petitioner had the opportunity to litigate his search claim in the Florida courts, so the district court was clearly correct in denying habeas relief under Stone v. Powell. No CoA because there’s no chance of success. Hill v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10365 (11th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).*
Defendant’s new issue of lack of consent wasn’t presented before the USMJ, so it can’t be raised in the objections. United States v. Allen, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57604 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 2, 2020).
“Hunt has not shown that Glenn violated a clearly established right either when he grabbed Hunt after Hunt refused to get out of the road, or when he took Hunt to the ground after Hunt resisted arrest. Hunt asserts that the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner establishes that right. But Garner concerned ‘the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon,’ …; its facts are too divergent from those in this case for it to be instructive. Glenn is thus entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.” Hunt v. City of Boulder City, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10343 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).*
Trash pulls by police are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding a local ordinance that limits trash collectors to rummaging in trash. United States v. Mathis, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10275 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020).
Defendant’s probation search was with reasonable suspicion. Months earlier, he’d been shot and wouldn’t say who did it. Later, he was arrested with a weapon himself. There was reasonable suspicion for the search. The government is in error to argue that the product of the search justifies it. United States v. Showers, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56868 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 1, 2020).*
Defendant’s stop was justified for overtinted windows despite the claim it was pretextual. Multiple police officers at the scene could smell marijuana, and that justified search of the car under the automobile exception. United States v. Carr, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57198 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 24, 2020),*
Officers who came to defendant’s door at 10 am and asked for permission to use a dog to sniff his yard didn’t violate Jardines. United States v. Flores, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10235 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).
“The present case concerns the search of a parked, unoccupied vehicle in which Wilson claims no property interest. He also claims that he does not own or control the property where the car was parked at the time of the search. As a result, this Court finds that Wilson does not have standing to seek suppression of the items found in the vehicle. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will consider Wilson’s arguments.” On the merits, “In the present case, investigators were notified by a reliable confidential informant that Wilson was selling heroin from the Carson Drive property. The investigators saw Wilson leave the Carson Drive property, and when they stopped him for a traffic violation, they found narcotics and a weapon in his vehicle. Finally, Wilson told the investigators that he occasionally lived at the Carson Drive property.” United States v. Wilson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57089 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 1, 2020).*
Defendant’s admission he possessed marijuana in his car was within the normal incidents of the traffic stop, Therefore, the officer could extend the stop under Rodriguez. United States v. Lott, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10237 (6th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).
While the police department’s written inventory policy didn’t really exist, and the search could be suppressed on that ground, inevitable discovery saves it. Defendant’s DL was suspended. The search of his person produced drugs, and that, in turn, permitted search of the vehicle. United States v. Alexander, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10236 (6th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).
Asking about drugs in the car during an “unavoidable lull” in the stop was unreasonable under the state constitution under Arreola-Botello. State v. McBride, 303 Ore. App. 292, 2020 Ore. App. LEXIS 433 (Apr. 1, 2020), on remand from 366 Ore. 97, 455 P.3d 925 (2020):
Posted inState constitution|Comments Off on OR: Asking about drugs in car during an “unavoidable lull” in traffic stop was unreasonable under state constitution
“Although we decide marginal cases in favor of upholding warrants, we cannot rubber stamp the authorization to search a home unsupported by probable cause. Here, the search warrant application established Higgins’s association with people who used or delivered controlled substances. But the application offered no observations, direct or indirect, showing Higgins kept drugs in his home. Without that nexus, the issuing magistrate did not have a substantial basis to find probable cause for the warrant. We thus reverse the suppression ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” State v. Higgins, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 347 (Apr. 1, 2020).
A controlled buy under surveillance was probable cause to search the car involved. United States v. Villa, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56445 (S.D. Ohio. Mar. 31, 2020).*
Posted inNexus, Probable cause|Comments Off on IA: Def’s association with known drug dealers without any nexus to his own house isn’t PC
Posted inCell phones, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on CNN: How the cell phones of spring breakers who flouted coronavirus warnings were tracked
A generic state claim for post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance in counsel of a Fourth Amendment claim that cited nothing was no claim at all, and didn’t toll § 2254 limitations. “Dunn’s September 2015 motion merely asserted that her convictions were obtained in violation of her Sixth and Fourth Amendment rights without containing any argument, caselaw, or legal analysis to that point. Thus, rather than being a properly filed application for postconviction relief that needed to be amended, the motion was insufficient to qualify as an ‘application’ for state postconviction relief at all. See Sibley, 377 F.3d at 1200. Accordingly, the district court properly found that Dunn’s September 2015 motion did not statutorily toll the one-year limitation period under § 2244(d)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).” Dunn v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10188 (11th Cir. Apr. 1, 2020).
Posted inIneffective assistance|Comments Off on CA11: Generic state 4A post-conviction petition with no citation of authority waived state claims
Defendant’s motion to suppress was previously denied, but she was allowed to specify what documents were overseized. “[T]he court will consider a motion to suppress specific documents or other evidence based on proof that such items were seized and that such seizure exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Despite her contention that she is now providing such proof, see ECF No. 639 at PageID #7288, in fact, Defendant is providing only photos of boxes holding documents separated by file tabs and her allegations regarding the type of documents pertaining to those file tabs. That is, Defendant still has not provided actual newly discovered evidence that a particular seized document was outside the scope of the search warrant and should be suppressed.” United States v. Sullivan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56334 (D. Haw. Feb. 28, 2020)
The search of defendant’s house occurred before he consented. The police clearly had probable cause for a search warrant for a house where a killing occurred. Inevitable discovery applied. State v. Little, 2020 Mo. App. LEXIS 374 (Mar. 31, 2020).*
Posted inInevitable discovery, Overseizure|Comments Off on D.Haw.: Def failed in her motion to reconsider overseizure by failure to specify exactly what was
“A police officer’s ‘characterization is not enough, standing alone, to implicate Fourth Amendment protections.’ Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 574, 108 S. Ct. 1975, 100 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1988). The parties’ characterization of the events notwithstanding, the Court must conduct its own constitutional analysis.” United States v. Mingo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56104 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2020).
The officer here was responding to a call of a man flashing a gun in a group. When he got there and started out of the car, he saw defendant reach for his waistband, start backing up, and then flee. That was reasonable suspicion. People v. Cherry, 2020 IL App (3d) 170622, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 217 (Mar. 31, 2020).*
Officers had a tip that a man wanted for a sexual assault was at a particular house, and they found him outside. “The officers thus had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain defendant where there was an initial tip from a 911 call, there was temporal proximity between the time of the tip and defendant’s location, and defendant matched the caller’s description and general location.” People v. Thornton, 2020 IL App (1st) 170753, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 218 (Mar. 31, 2020).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.Minn.: “A police officer’s ‘characterization is not enough, standing alone, to implicate Fourth Amendment protections.’” That’s the court’s duty
The officer stopped after he believed defendant shouted an obscenity at him. When the officer looked at defendant, he spit in the officer’s direction. The patdown thereafter was without reasonable suspicion. The removal of a round cylindrical object from his pocket couldn’t be a gun, and the pill bottle is suppressed. People v. White, 2020 IL App (1st) 171814, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 221 (Mar. 31, 2020).
Defendant consented to the police entry into his house where he was questioned. United States v. Dion, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56149 (D. Me. Mar. 31, 2020).*
Defendant’s arrest at his home was with probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. There was no reason to apply the state constitution more expansively. People v. Bahena, 2020 IL App (1st) 180197, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 215 (Mar. 31, 2020) (rejecting the state constitutional argument made by a different division).*
A search warrant to search an apartment and seize computers and cell phones includes the power to search them later. United States v. Quinonez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55789 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2020).
The officer’s statement that the CI’s statement corroborated a video to some extent wasn’t false for a Franks challenge. It was qualified, and probable cause still remains. United States v. Polanco, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55918 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020).*
The Ci’s information was corroborated by a look in defendant’s parked vehicle. Therefore, there was probable cause under the automobile exception to search it. United States v. Hendrickson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56132 (D. V.I. Mar. 31, 2020).*
The Executive Order 01-20 does not authorize road closure or the establishment of roadblocks, checkpoints or the authority to demand identification. You will continue to see motor-vehicle and pedestrian traffic as Vermonters pursue permissible activities outdoors and travel to and from businesses and entities that are continuing to operate under the Order. Accordingly, the Order does NOT establish cause to initiate a motor vehicle stop. The protections in Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitutions still apply.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on VT AG: Attorney General’s Directive to Law Enforcement on the Enforcement of the COVID-19 Emergency Order
"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.
