The granting of defendant’s motion to suppress is affirmed. Although the stop of his vehicle was proper, his frisk was improper as was the search of his car which was based on the results of the improper frisk. Defendant’s actions did not indicate that he was armed and dangerous since he made no furtive movements, he had already gotten out of his vehicle and could not use it as a weapon, his body was fully visible to the officers, he was fully compliant with all commands issued by the officers, and he was outnumbered. The fact that the events unfolded quickly did not create a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous. Commonwealth v. Torres-Pagan, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 62 (Jan. 29, 2020).
Disagreeing with the R&R, the court finds the CI was sufficiently corroborated to establish probable cause. Defendant was in the subject car at the time of the controlled buy. Defendant’s arrest was not unreasonable because of his proximity and apparent knowledge. Because his arrest was valid, his search incident was too. United States v. Acevedo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12017 (D. Minn. Jan. 24, 2020).*
The affidavits for search warrant are only three pages long, and they reference the crimes under investigation on page one or the first paragraph. That is enough here to show particularity. “The Court concludes that the fact that these brief warrants do not reference the suspected crimes within the paragraphs authorizing seizure does not render them insufficiently particular. ‘[T]here is no settled formula’ in the Second Circuit ‘for determining whether a warrant lacks particularity,’…; rather a warrant must be sufficiently specific ‘to permit the rational exercise of judgment [by the executing officers] in selecting what items to seize.’” This warrant is particular. As to a Franks allegation, “After correcting the errors specifically identified by Sadr, the Court finds that the hypothetical corrected affidavit still establishes probable cause. Accordingly, Sadr has not made a substantial showing of materiality to warrant a Franks hearing on the basis of the misstatements, omissions, and ‘misleading claims’ specifically identified in his memorandum of law. Nor is he entitled to one to determine whether the ‘truth or falsity of these and other misrepresentations’ not specifically identified and not now before the Court were necessary to the probable cause showing.” He had a duty to provide all the misstatements, not just what he says are the important ones. Still, the court deletes the misstatements, adds in the omissions, and then the court retests the affidavit for its showing or probable cause. United States v. Nejad, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14213 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 28, 2020).
Posted inFranks doctrine, Particularity|Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: In a 3 page affidavit for SW, showing the crimes under investigation was particular enough
It wasn’t unreasonable for the officer to forgo defendant’s arrest and get him to walk with the officer to the house where another officer was waiting. This was for safety purposes. United States v. Brigley, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13938 (D.Me. Jan. 28, 2020).
The court accepts the officer’s testimony that he got defendant out of the car and saw the baggie of drugs as he removed him. Defendant’s claim that the officer searched him by reaching in his pocket as he removed him is of no moment considering the plain view. United States v. Wilkerson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14203 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 29, 2020).*
Posted inPlain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.Me.: It wasn’t unreasonable for the officer to delay def’s arrest until they moved to where another officer was for safety
The explicit collective detail of the three informants was probable cause. United States v. Morelock, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225737 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2019), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12596 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 27, 2020)*: Continue reading →
Posted inInformant hearsay|Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Explicit collective detail of three CIs was probable cause
“[The CI’s] reliability is further supported by the fact that he ‘testified under threat of the criminal sanction for perjury,’ and that his eye-witness report of the crime was incredibly detailed.” United States v. Martin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738 (2d Cir. Jan. 24, 2020).*
The officer here had a 911 call in a “troublesome area.” When he announced his intention to frisk defendant and put a hand on him, that was a seizure, but defendant immediately fled. Defendant’s ultimate seizure when he was trapped in a back yard after the chase was reasonable. United States v. Lyons, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13588 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2020).*
“Under the facts of this case, the Court concludes that law enforcement agents had the requisite reasonable belief that Sparks was residing at 6825 Walrond Avenue and/or 5501 Smart Avenue and was present at the addresses at the time of the attempted execution of the arrest warrant. The Court sees no contradiction or fatal inconsistency with officers having a “reason to believe” that a suspect may reside — and be found — at two different addresses. Here, officers had satisfactory contemporary operative facts that pointed to Sparks residing at both addresses.” United States v. Sparks, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13845 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2020).
The officers’ summary of a report wasn’t as detailed as the report, but it wasn’t misleading either. Therefore, a Franks hearing isn’t required. United States v. Sheehan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13781 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2020).*
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: For purposes of entry on an arrest warrant, officers can reasonably believe def had two addresses
“Hamilton’s complaint alleged that Judge Ragland is liable in damages for his unconstitutional actions in allowing [clerk] Overbey to issue arrest warrants and set bonds using his signature stamp, and in setting a schedule requiring cash-only bonds without regard to the arrested person’s ability to pay. On appeal, Hamilton argues the district court erred in dismissing these claims based on Judge Ragland’s judicial immunity.” The clerk gets the judge’s immunity as long as the judge authorized the act. Hamilton v. City of Hayti, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665 (8th Cir. Jan. 28, 2020).
The initial encounter at the Albuquerque bus station was found consensual, so there was abandonment of a bag. United States v. Vazquez-Lopez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13835 (D. N.M. Jan. 28, 2020).*
Posted inAbandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on CA8: Judge authorizing rubberstamp of signature by clerk after PC for arrest found not 4A violation
The headings tell us the case: “A. Lieutenant Kennedy had the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful conduct to initiate a traffic stop on Defendant’s vehicle based upon traffic violations and erratic driving consistent with that of an impaired driver.” “B. Lieutenant Kennedy had probable cause to search the vehicle upon seeing the baggie and capsules in plain view on the floorboard of the vehicle.” United States v. Reese, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12977 (N.D. W.Va. Jan. 21, 2020).*
The dashcam and bodycam establish the factual basis for the stop that defendant was driving toward oncoming traffic with his high beams on. United States v. Tubbs-Smith, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020).*
Defendant lacked standing to contest the search of an apartment building he owned but rented the units out to relatives. The CI, however, puts the defendant in one of the apartments with cocaine and a firearm ten days before the search talking about his alleged drug dealing. The CI’s information was otherwise reliable for probable cause. United States v. Thompson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12316 (W.D. N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020).*
The court finds that the local police and HSI entered the house after the search warrant was issued based on the time of the warrant and a dashcam video. Even if there was a prior entry as alleged, nothing from that entry was used to obtain the search warrant. Denied. United States v. Jackson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12306 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2020).*
Posted inStanding, Warrant execution|Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Def lacked standing in apts he owned and rented to relatives
Maine’s statute that requires a blood draw of the driver in a fatal or near fatal accident without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the 2007 case upholding the statute is overruled. It cannot be categorized under the special needs exception because it serves a law enforcement purpose. In this case, however, the state gets the benefit of the good faith exception because the officer was relying on a statute that had been upheld before. Saufley v. Weddle, 2020 Me. LEXIS 12 (Jan. 28, 2020): Continue reading →
A jury could reasonably conclude that using a Taser on plaintiff lying on his own bed, on his cell phone trying to call his lawyer, who didn’t violently resist but just pulled his arm away, was an unreasonable use of force. The law is settled on this. Valle v. Thorne, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2463 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020).*
Defendant’s long roadside detention leading to his statement leads to exclusion, considering all the factors. State v. Alessi, 2020 N.J. LEXIS 22 (Jan. 27, 2020).*
Defendant does not show any material misstatements in the affidavit for search warrant. The allegations are essentially speculative. United States v. 231, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12441 (D. Haw. Jan. 24, 2020).*
Posted inExcessive force, Franks doctrine, Seizure|Comments Off on CA9: Tasering a man in his own bed not cooperating in being arrested could be found excessive
The officer could tell the driver to get out of the car in a traffic stop. Defendant then consented to a full patdown that produced a crack pipe. When the officer touched it and asked what it was, defendant freely admitted what it was. State v. Joyner, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 38 (Jan. 24, 2020).*
Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not show a violation of Fourth Amendment rights for defendants’ impounding an abandoned trailer of his. Mesadieu v. City of Linden, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2531 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2020).*
Defendant’s successor petition alleges the same grounds as already denied, including an illegal arrest claim, but with slightly different facts. In re Dunson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2585 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2020).*
In a civil case, the court refuses to take judicial notice of the facts alleged in three search warrants that are not part of the case. Aubrey v. D Magazine Partners, L.P., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12304 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020): Continue reading →
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Three SWs not part of case were not subject to judicial notice
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on WaPo: Perspective: Facebook will now show you exactly how it stalks you — even when you’re not using Facebook
The Intercept: The Rise of Smart Camera Networks, and Why We Should Ban Them by Michael Kwet (“The rise of all-seeing smart camera networks is an alarming development that threatens civil rights and liberties throughout the world. Law enforcement agencies have a long history of using surveillance against marginalized communities, and studies show surveillance chills freedom of expression — ill effects that could spread as camera networks grow larger and more sophisticated.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on The Intercept: The Rise of Smart Camera Networks, and Why We Should Ban Them
Posted inReasonableness, Warrant execution|Comments Off on techdirt: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed
The government met its burden of proof that defendants consented to entry into their house to look for a wanted man by their saying “he’s not fucking here—go fucking look” and “he’s not fucking in there—go ahead.” United States v. Hill, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12176 (D.Mont. Jan. 24, 2020).
The search incident of defendant’s backpack was unreasonable where the police had control of it well prior to the search. United States v. Bell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11613 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020).
It “appears” there is probable cause for issuance of the search warrant, and defendant does not even get an evidentiary hearing. In addition, the attempted Franks showing falls short. United States v. Beardsley, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12188 (W.D. N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020).*
Posted inConsent, Search incident|Comments Off on D.Mont.: “he’s not fucking here—go fucking look” was consent to enter
"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.
