A full forensic search of defendant’s cell phone was authorized by the affidavit which was attached to the search warrant. There were admissions from the defendant on jail calls to others that were reported to the police. The paraphrasing the content of the calls didn’t rise to the level of a Franks violation for not listening to the calls themselves. United States v. Zulawski, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182712 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 26, 2019).*
Defendant’s claim the stop wasn’t valid isn’t supported by the record. The officer testified that there was a traffic offense, and the officer wasn’t required to arrest for one. The deployment of the dog didn’t prolong the stop. At the police station, defendant voluntarily disrobed, they thought to hide the fact he had drugs in his underwear. United States v. Minor, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183054 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 23, 2019).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress somebody else’s cell phones because defendant had no standing. Swatzell v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182479 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2019).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Strip search|Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Paraphrasing def’s jail calls on hearsay without affiant actually listening to them isn’t a Franks violation
Defendant was unconscious after a single car accident and he smelled of alcohol. There was probable cause and the blood draw did not violate the Fourth Amendment under Mitchell v. Wisconsin. State v. Gray, 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1671 (Oct. 22, 2019).
Defendant’s Franks claim fails. There is probable cause on the face of the affidavit for the search warrant and the suggestion of omitted information does not undermine it. Moreover, defendant doesn’t overcome the presumption that the good faith exception applies. United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182627 (E.D.Wis. Aug. 30, 2019).*
There was probable cause that defendant brandished a weapon outside of his house and that it would be found in defendant’s house. Moreover, the good faith exception applied. United States v. Roldan-Marin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182978 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 1, 2019),*
Defendant challenged only the seizure of his cell phone from a car he was a passenger in, and not its later search with a warrant. The search warrant makes all the difference, even assuming he had standing, which he likely didn’t. United States v. Ray, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182823 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 3, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inCell phones|Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Def was a passenger in a car and his cell phone was seized and subjected to search with a warrant; the seizure was lawful
Probable cause to arrest doesn’t go stale like probable cause to search does. “Haldorson’s primary contention is that the information from the controlled buy was too stale three weeks later to support probable cause for an arrest. The mere passage of time does not necessarily dissipate the probable cause for an arrest. It is well-established that “there is no requirement that an offender be arrested the moment probable cause is established.” United States v. Reis, 906 F.2d 284, 289 (7th Cir. 1990) (citing Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 310, 87 S. Ct. 408, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1966)).” “Our facts are nearly identical to those that the Tenth Circuit confronted in United States v. Hinson, 585 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2009).” “It is the rare case where ‘staleness’ will be relevant to the legality of a warrantless arrest. When there is a reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime, time by itself does not make the existence of that fact any less probable. Certainly, ‘[g]ood police practice often requires postponing an arrest, even after probable cause has been established, in order to place the suspect under surveillance or otherwise develop further evidence necessary to prove guilt to a jury.’ United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 431, 96 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1976 (Powell, J., concurring)).” United States v. Haldorson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31569 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019).
When defendant came to the door and answered the officers’ knock, and moved into the threshold when they said they were “security forces,” he was subject to arrest right there without the officers violating the privacy of the home. They also had probably cause to arrest him. United States v. Roberts, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182696 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2019).
Defendant claims his lawyer in his 2255 was ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress for him, but he can’t show that it would be meritorious. Kitroser v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182578 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019).*
Defendant’s computer was open for peer-to-peer exchange of child pornography. Therefore, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his own computer. United States v. Shipton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182734 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2019),* adopted, 019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183010 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2019).*
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on NYTimes: You Got a Brain Scan at the Hospital. Someday a Computer May Use It to Identify You.NYTimes: You Got a Brain Scan at the Hospital. Someday a Computer May Use It to Identify You.
Law.com: Commentary: The Privacy Revolution Has Arrived (in the US) (“While the European Economic Area, including the European Union, has led the modern privacy revolution, specifically by enacting and enforcing the groundbreaking General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the protection of consumer privacy is also gaining momentum around the globe. In the United States, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is leading the way.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Law.com: Commentary: The Privacy Revolution Has Arrived (in the US)
NYLJ: Analysis: Warrant-Proof Encryption and Lawful Decryption (“In his Cyber Crime column, Peter A. Crusco addresses the legal landscape surrounding the question of what legal options are available for decrypting an electronic device that has been seized via a lawful search warrant subject to a criminal investigation. For example, may an accountant be compelled to disclose the password to a computer or cellphone? Courts are in apparent disagreement, and federal and state legislatures appear unwilling to act.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on NYLJ: Analysis: Warrant-Proof Encryption and Lawful Decryption
Plaintiff sued under § 1983 because police got his blood work from the hospital albeit under Indiana statute. “We turn next to Stewart’s Fourth Amendment claim. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendant police officers on the basis that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law because they obtained the blood test results under the Indiana statute. The defendants urge us to affirm on that basis or on the grounds of qualified immunity. Agreeing that the district court committed no error, we choose the latter course.” Stewart v. Parkview Hosp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31473 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019).
The Sheriff’s failure to release plaintiff promptly did not show deliberate indifference. There are systems for entering information from the courts to get people released. Defendant’s “singular experience” resulting in his over detention doesn’t show pattern and practice. Levy v. Marion Cty. Sheriff, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31041 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2019).*
Posted in§ 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on CA7: Police officers who obtained def’s blood work from a hospital under an Indiana statute didn’t violate the 4A
“As indicated, however, the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing
judge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind. United States
v. Jones, 208 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2000). In the context of omissions, the defendant ‘must
offer direct evidence of the affiant’s state of mind or inferential evidence that the affiant had
obvious reasons for omitting facts in order to prove deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard.’
United States v. McNeese, 901 F.2d 585, 594 (7th Cir. 1990). Defendant fails to do so here.” United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182202 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2019).
Defendant is charged with criminal civil rights violations for excessive force. He claims lack of fair notice that the Fourth Amendment was violated. The court disagrees and finds the law of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment well settled. United States v. Wheaten, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182129 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2019).*
Posted inExcessive force, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: “the issue is not whether the affiant omitted information the issuing judge may have found relevant; rather, the focus is on the affiant’s state of mind.”
The officer’s claim that defendant’s log book wasn’t up to date was a mere pretext and subterfuge to unreasonably continue the stop in violation of Rodriguez. State v. Morgan, 2019 OK CR 26, 2019 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 26 (Oct. 17, 2019).
Defendant made admissions in jail calls that any evidence would be on his old cell phone. Police then got a search warrant for the cell phone. The fact the content of the calls wasn’t repeated verbatim wasn’t a Franks violation. United States v. Zulawski, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182167 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2019).*
Posted inPretext, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on OK: Officer’s excuse for extending the stop was pretext and violated Rodriguez
The stop of one suspect created exigent circumstances for entry into the premises to freeze it until a warrant could be obtained. The police reasonably feared that occupants would learn of the stop and destroy evidence. On entry, there was a plain view. United States v. Evans, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181597 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2019).
Nexus was shown: “Here, the affidavit established that Villar stopped at his home before selling heroin to the confidential informant. Thus, the affidavit specifically links a sale of heroin to Villar’s home. Further, the affidavit points to other drug-related contraband found in Villar’s trash, thereby connecting Villar’s home to drug activity. Additionally, the affiant detective stated that he believed, in light of the contraband recovered from the trash pull as well as his training and experience, that contraband and evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the home.” United States v. Vargas, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31355 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019).*
Posted inEmergency / exigency, Nexus|Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Stop of one suspect created exigency that occupants might destroy evidence; entry justified
Defendant did not own the premises searched, but he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it because of his connection to it. Also, criminal acts on the premises is not a waiver of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Minnesota v. Carter is different because there the premises were used solely for distribution of drugs – it was not a residence. United States v. Jordan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181643 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2019).
The defendant juvenile’s pat search wasn’t justified by reasonable suspicion or safety concerns. Police were responding to a robbery call late at night, and they encountered a few juveniles. They didn’t express any safety concerns, the juvenile was smaller than the police officers, and there just was no reasonable suspicion for patting him down. In re Jeremiah S., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1033 (1st Dist. Oct. 21, 2019).*
The standard of review of probable cause for a search warrant is not de novo—it’s whether there is a substantial basis for believing that evidence would be found. Here, “Although some of the information lacked detail, the volume and corroboration of the information constitutes substantial evidence in support of probable causes here. … The level of specificity demanded by defendant is not necessary. … Law enforcement officers obtained information from multiple sources who corroborated key aspects of defendant’s alleged criminal activity over the span of months. These sources described an ongoing scheme in which defendant would frequently use his silver Cadillac or silver van to transport drugs from Kansas City to Dubuque.” Finally, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Seys, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181288 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 21, 2019).*
Two search warrants issued in a death investigation, one in Georgia and one in Vermont, were both supported by probable cause. Leili v. State, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 703 (Oct. 21, 2019).*
Officers putting a wildlife camera on plaintiff’s open fields wasn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Hollingsworth v. Tenn. Wildlife Res. Agency, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181311 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inOpen fields|Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Putting a wildlife camera on ptf’s open fields wasn’t a violation of the 4A
Massachusetts well explains the totality of circumstances test applied to what a civilian would find an inherently coercive police citizen contact but the courts hardly ever do. Commonwealth v. Matta, 2019 Mass. LEXIS 582 (Oct. 21, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inSeizure, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on MA well explains the totality of circumstances test applied to police-citizen contacts
Warrantless retrieval of data from the airbag control module (ACM) from a vehicle after a car crash was a search that required a warrant. Mobley v. State, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 694 (Oct. 21, 2019). Continue reading →
Defendant’s general allegation that the DEA officers violated their own policy manual isn’t specific and doesn’t even rise to the level of dismissal of the indictment, which is what he alleges. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that violations of agency regulations are not grounds for applying the exclusionary rule when a defendant does not show that his constitutional rights were violated. United States v. Caceres, ….” United States v. Willis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181064 (W.D. La. Sept. 22, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180164 (W.D. La. Oct. 17, 2019).
Defendant said nothing to object to a search of his car. He essentially said he was confused by it all. Found to be by consent. United States v. Skinner, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180491 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2019).*
Posted inConsent, Exclusionary rule|Comments Off on W.D.La.: Dismissal of indictment is not remedy for DEA allegedly violating its policy manual, even if it did
The search warrant was sufficiently particular despite there being more than one entrance to the building and the fact there were multiple electric boxes outside. Based on what the officers knew, it was either one or all under his control. United States v. Laury, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180484 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inParticularity|Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Despite appearance building was multi-unit, SW was still particular because it alleged he was in control
"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.
