Giving a cop the finger, although universally now recognized as protected speech, was reasonable suspicion for a stop for disorderly conduct. [The dissent has the far better argument, here. The majority is just wrong, and cites cases that prove it.] State v. Ellis, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 713 (Aug 20, 2019).
The officer did not use excessive force, at least for qualified immunity purposes, because plaintiff was known to have fled police before, dragging an officer then, and this time he was boxed in, locked himself in his vehicle, and then drove at the officer who shot and killed him. Goldston v. Anderson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25435 (5th Cir. Aug. 23, 2019).*
Posted inQualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on NC: Giving cop the finger was RS for stop for disorderly conduct, despite it being recognized free speech
When the police showed up to search the premises, defendant was outside cleaning his car. His detention cannot be justified by Summers as a known recent occupant of the premises. His conviction is reversed. State v. Thompson, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 703 (Aug. 20, 2019).
There was a fair probability on the totality of information that drugs would be found at the location searched, so there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. State v. Bailey, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 705 (Aug. 20, 2019).*
Posted inReasonableness, Uncategorized|Comments Off on NC: Def outside cleaning his car when police showed up for drug raid couldn’t be detained under Summers
The search warrant had the wrong address, but there were attachments to it when presented to the USMJ which gave the correct address. In addition, the affiant was familiar with the place to be searched, and he went along on the raid to be sure the search went as planned. When the search warrant was presented to the target, however, the attachments correctly identifying the place to be searched weren’t there. While Groh was violated on the lack of particularity of the place to be searched, the court finds the mistake mere negligence and not systemic warranting application of the exclusionary rule. The court distinguishes a case where the officer was inexperienced and got such a pass with this case where the officer was experienced. United States v. Merchant, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143457 (D. V.I. Aug. 23, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inExclusionary rule, Particularity|Comments Off on D.V.I.: Failure to include limiting attachments at time of execution of SW was 4A violation, but mere oversight and exclusionary rule not applied
Officers came to defendant’s home for a knock-and-talk, and he saw them and fled, and the USMJ credited that the officers could see him discard a drug container. The court finds this was hot pursuit. “Of course, the Versailles police did not have the opportunity to ‘talk’ to Hardy, let alone ‘knock’ on his front door. The defendant contends that the ensuing chase crossed over his constitutionally-protected yard to arrive at the location of the drugs, approximately twenty-to-thirty feet away from where he was apprehended. … Whether the open yard is actually curtilage-protected under the Fourth Amendment is debatable, but Lyons’ pursuit and arrival at the location of the drugs was clearly lawful even if that portion of the yard is part of the curtilage.” United States v. Hardy, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143414 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 2019).* [This claimed welfare check sounds like it was based on near probable cause, but the officers chose a knock-and-talk instead.]
The search warrant was not stale. While there was reference to activities three months before the warrant was issued, defendant was seen coming and going from the location on the way to do drug transactions with a known drug dealer officers had under surveillance. The officer averred [as they always do] that evidence of drug dealing would be found at the house: paraphernalia, books, ledgers, more drugs. “The United States asserts that agents did not know Angulo had moved at the time they executed the search warrant, but that regardless, such knowledge would not have nullified probable cause to search 9000 Zuni. … This is because the warrant was intended to search for ‘evidence related to a larger DTO,’ and there was no reason to believe Angulo had taken all of the evidence with him when he moved.” United States v. Topete-Madrueno, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143456 (D. N.M. Aug. 23, 2019).*
Posted inStaleness|Comments Off on D.N.M.: SW wasn’t stale; def was doing enough to show his conduct was ongoing, and the officers didn’t even know he’d moved just before the raid
Police had a search warrant to obtain DNA. A search warrant implies that reasonable force might have to be used to execute it. A target can’t simply refuse to comply. State v. Evans, 2019 UT App 145, 2019 Utah App. LEXIS 147 (Aug. 23, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inDNA, Warrant execution|Comments Off on UT: SW implicitly carries authority to use reasonble force to execute it; here, taking DNA
An affidavit for an arrest warrant prepared by UV police is a public record subject to disclosure. Oblak v. Univ. of Vt. Police Servs., 2019 VT 56, 2019 Vt. LEXIS 109 (Aug. 24, 2019).
The government on the totality linked defendant to the place searched on a search warrant: his car had been seen there, his girlfriend lived there, the car was linked to the robbery, a person matching defendant’s description had left there in the car. United States v. Gladney, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143742 (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2019).*
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Nexus|Comments Off on VT: Affidavit for arrest warrant by university police is a public record
Relying on factual statements of other law enforcement officers for a search warrant affidavit is more than just adopting the bare conclusions of others. They are entitled to more credibility than statements of CIs. State v. Almahmmody, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 515 (Aug. 23, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inInformant hearsay|Comments Off on TN: Factual statements from other LEOs not judged as CI statements in affidavit
Defendant’s cell phone was still potential evidence in his retrial, so it won’t be ordered returned to him. State v. Metz, 2019-Ohio-3370, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3440 (8th Dist. Aug. 22, 2019).
Officers approached defendant’s house for a welfare check, and defendant fled and abandoned drugs when officers approached. The purpose of the coming to the house was reasonable, and defendant’s actions led to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hardy, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143828 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 19, 2019).*
Reasonable suspicion existed to detain defendant for coming into a trailer park known for its drug sales. Police had a pole camera set up recording comings and goings, and defendant had been there multiple times before. On the totality of circumstances, officers had reasonable suspicion to continue the detention to get a drug dog there. State v. Casson, 2019 ND 216, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 222 (Aug. 22, 2019).*
There was a strip search of everybody in a prison barracks because of a report of a gun. It was done in the hallway for security reason and there were too many to do it in the bathroom. The fact female guards may have seen it from afar was incidental and not material to the search. Holloway v. Phillips, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143784 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 9, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143324 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 23, 2019).*
The affidavit for search warrant failed to connect defendant to the premises sufficient for there to be probable cause, and the court of appeals decision to suppress is affirmed. As to a vehicle, the officer had more information but didn’t include it. The fact he was there at the time of the arrest was likely incidental and could have been innocent. State v. Lewis, 2019 N.C. LEXIS 793 (Aug. 22, 2019).
On remand from Grady v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (2015), North Carolina’s lifetime satellite based monitoring system is unconstitutional as applied to those “recidivists” who have completed parole and all post-release supervision. The court does not go into other classes of offenders. State v. Grady, 2019 N.C. LEXIS 799 (Aug. 16, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inGPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on NC: On remand from Grady, lifetime monitoring of sex offense “recidivists” off parole or any community control violates 4A
Police officer’s threat to arrest plaintiff for trespass if he didn’t leave a shopping center was not a Fourth Amendment seizure. Watkins v. Ramcharan, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25016 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2019).
The officer’s encounter with a parked car and telling defendant to turn down the radio so they could talk was not a seizure. The DUI case failed, however, because the implied consent form was defective. City of Bismarck v. Vagts, 2019 ND 224, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 223 (Aug. 22, 2019).*
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on CA11: Officer’s threat to arrest ptf for trespass if he didn’t leave a shopping center wasn’t a seizure
When defendant started probation, a GPS monitor was placed on him without court order by a probation employee that just assumed it was required. It wasn’t. It was an apparent violation of the Fourth Amendment, but it’s within the Heien rule that a reasonable mistake of fact can be overlooked. At worst this was negligence under Herring. Also, the police agency that ended up using the GPS information wasn’t the one that placed it. Therefore, all this counsels against suppression. Maldonado v. State, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 12890 (4th DCA Aug. 22, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inExclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data|Comments Off on FL4: Mistakenly placed GPS on probationer isn’t suppressed under Heien and Herring
Checkpoint stops of commercial vehicle are government by New York v. Burger, already followed in Pennsylvania, and not other checkpoint case law. Checkpoint case law doesn’t fit with commercial vehicle inspections. Commonwealth v. Maguire, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 4704 (Aug. 22, 2019).
There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for simple assault under Florida law. The fact there were no outward signs of injury doesn’t mean that probable cause ceased to exist once the officer saw the victim. Handcuffing plaintiff wasn’t excessive when she rejected the officer’s suggestion of how to get more comfortable in the police car. Huebner v. Bradshaw, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25020 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2019).*
Posted inAdministrative search, Excessive force|Comments Off on PA: Commercial truck checkpoint stops governed by Burger, not by general checkpoint rules
A successor habeas isn’t a way to raise a Riley cell phone search claim. Young v. Pfeiffer, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23923 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2019).
There was reasonable suspicion to continue the detention from unusual nervousness, inconsistent stories about where they were coming from and where they were going, and an inability to produce any documents for the rental car they were in. United States v. Laneaux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141657 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 21, 2019).*
The dash cam video shows defendant’s traffic offenses and then refusal to stop right away when the emergency lights came on. The stop was lawful. United States v. Ledford, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143031 (N.D. Ind. July 19, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142471 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2019).*
After a border search of electronic media finding some probable child pornography, officers let defendant go, then showed up at his house a month later with a search warrant and found more.
United States v. Skaggs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142714 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2019).*
The issuing magistrate had a fair basis for concluding there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant based on the admissions of a person stopped having bought drugs from the house. State v. Anthony, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 708 (Aug. 20, 2019).*
A continuance to file yet a third motion to suppress just before trial was properly denied in the discretion of the district court. United States v. Basey, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24208 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2019).*
Posted inBorder search, Probable cause|Comments Off on S.D.Ind.: Border search of ESI led to def being released then SW for house month later
Defendant was on supervised release and was required to wear a GPS monitor. After a crime, probation officers checked to see if perchance any of their probationers were at the scene at the time, and defendant was. The examination of the records was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Moreover, defendant fails in his argument he was set up to fail with the GPS monitor. The trial court suppressed but the court of appeals reversed. United States v. Jackson, 2019 D.C. App. LEXIS 346 (Aug. 22, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inGPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on DC: Probationer on GPS monitoring could be checked against crime data to connect him to crime without violating 4A
IP information from Facebook is not subject to suppression by statute. There are civil and criminal penalties, and that’s it. As for the search warrant for his house, it was constitutionally particular. United States v. Carter, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142530 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 22, 2019).
Defendant wasn’t in ICE custody when he made admissions and consented. Benitez v. Barr, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24078 (9th Cir. Aug. 13, 2019).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and Oregon tort claims are both time barred. Leonetti v. Bray, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23959 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019).*
Posted inParticularity, Social media warrants|Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: There is no suppression remedy for obtaining IP information from Facebook
A manual border search of a cell phone doesn’t require reasonable suspicion. A forensic search, however, requires reasonable suspicion. United States v. Cano, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24457 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2019). Summary by the court: Continue reading →
Posted inBorder search, Cell phones|Comments Off on CA9: A manual border search of a cell phone doesn’t require RS, but a forensic search does
"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.
