Defendants were properly denied qualified immunity in using excessive force to arrest plaintiff. Plaintiff’s version of the facts showed clearly established rights were violated. Heck v. Humphrey didn’t apply because plaintiff wasn’t seeking to attack his conviction. Cendan v. Trujillo, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23884 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019).*
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality to get defendant out of the car for a FST. State v. Osborne, 2019-Ohio-3235, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3327 (11th Dist. Aug. 12, 2019).*
A search warrant issued for a doctor’s office and a pharmacy for records. Defendant was a subtenant and lacked standing in the area of the doctor’s office. Even so, the warrant was specific enough to cover the places searched. United States v. Ranochak, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134977 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 12, 2019).*
Defendant’s 2255 Fourth Amendment/Sixth Amendment ineffectiveness challenge completely contradicts the position taken in the district court and his admissions before conviction and on appeal. Defense counsel couldn’t be ineffective for not coming up with that. United States v. Fonville, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134949 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2019).
Defendant’s Franks challenge came post verdict. Even assuming it was timely based on what was learned at trial, it fails for lack of a “substantial basis” of knowing or reckless falsity. United States v. Mayweather, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135413 (D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2019).*
Defendant was stopped at an immigration checkpoint and was told that his car was going to be inspected. Therefore, there is no issue of consent. He was seized at the checkpoint and couldn’t leave. United States v. Norris, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135165 (D. Ariz. Aug. 12, 2019).*
Plaintiff’s 1983 claim for illegal search which resulted in suppression in state court resulted in a $1 verdict. A fascinating opinion on proximate cause of damages and a Fourth and Fifth Amendment violation which is worth the read for future cases, but the court ultimately concludes that the $1 verdict would be affirmed. Martin v. Marinez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23972 (7th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted in§ 1983 / Bivens|Comments Off on CA7: Ptf’s $1 verdict for illegal search after successful suppression affirmed; what is proximate cause?
Automatic license plate reader cameras are controversial enough when law enforcement deploys them, given that they can create a panopticon of transit throughout a city. Now one hacker has found a way to put a sample of that power—for safety, he says, and for surveillance—into the hands of anyone with a Tesla and a few hundred dollars to spare.
If you can afford a Tesla, you have a few hundred dollars to spare.
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Wired: This Tesla Mod Turns a Model S Into a Mobile ‘Surveillance Station’
Flight alone isn’t reasonable suspicion on the totality. More is required, and here there wasn’t any. Flight alone is not reasonable suspicion because innocent people may flee for fear of being caught up in something they didn’t do. People v. Flores, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 740 (4th Dist. Aug. 12, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on Cal.4: Flight alone isn’t RS; the innocent may flee, too
The officers’ delay of 30 minutes or less before entering on exigent circumstances was not unreasonable. They were actively investigating, gathering information, and didn’t want to act precipitously. “The officers concluded as much investigation as they could on an immediate basis, and after being unable to locate Ms. Puryear, it was then reasonable for the officers to effect a soft, warrantless, entry into the apartment, using the landlord’s key.” United States v. Johnson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135267 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2019).
Defendant’s furtive movements led to officers seeing a Crown Royal bag with cash protruding that gave reasonable suspicion to search around where it was. “When that limited search uncovered suspected methamphetamine, the probable cause expanded to include a search of the trunk, where more drugs were found.” A parole warrant was discovered on him, and that authorized a more intense search incident to that arrest. United States v. Carrender, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135578 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 12, 2019).*
Posted inEmergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: 30 minute delay before warrantless entry with a key in learning all they could didn’t nullify exigency
The Boston MTA did not violate the Fourth Amendment by requiring a drug test of an employee involved in an “incident” short of an “accident.” The employee was in a safety sensitive position. Cabral v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., Boston Carmen’s Union Local 589, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135579 (D. Mass. June 18, 2019).
Probable cause here was based on the overwhelming smell of unburnt marijuana, the fact defendant didn’t have an MMJ cultivator’s license, and prior convictions for growing and distributing marijuana. Commonwealth v. Long, 2019 Mass. LEXIS 499 (Aug. 12, 2019).
Posted inDrug or alcohol testing, Probable cause|Comments Off on D.Mass.: Transit worker in safety sensitive position could be drug tested for an “incident” short of an “accident”
Merely showing that a foregone motion to suppress was “arguable” isn’t IAC. Petitioner has to show it would have prevailed. Accordingly, he cannot show that counsel’s decision not to file a motion to suppress was objectively unreasonable.” Silva v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135422 (W.D. N.C. Date: Aug. 12, 2019).
The parties dispute whether defendant’s state parole search condition required reasonable suspicion or not. That doesn’t have to be decided because there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Swisher, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135358 (D. Neb. Aug. 12, 2019).*
“In the post-decriminalization era, the mere odor of marijuana coupled with possession of what is clearly less than ten grams of marijuana, absent other circumstances, does not grant officers probable cause to effectuate an arrest and conduct a search incident thereto. It is well established that individuals have a heighted expectation of privacy in their person as compared to their automobile, meaning the probable cause analysis for the search incident to arrest exception versus the automobile exception will often differ given the respective justifications for those exceptions and the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, although Petitioner’s possession of a marijuana cigarette along with the odor of marijuana may have given the officers probable cause to search his vehicle, it did not grant them probable cause to arrest him and conduct a search incident thereto.” (Summary by the court) Pacheco v. State, 2019 Md. LEXIS 389 (Aug. 12, 2019).
Posted inPlain view, feel, smell|Comments Off on MD: In a MJ decrim state, smell of MJ on the person may be PC to search a vehicle but not search a person or arrest
People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 981 P.2d 928 (1999) that created a limited “community caretaking function” entry into a home without true exigency is overruled. By case law, that exception is limited to vehicles, not houses. An articulable exigency is required to enter a home. People v. Ovieda, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 5947 (Aug. 12, 2019): Continue reading →
At an immigration checkpoint stop, courts will not scrutinize the specific words the officers use to question people about their status, as in “can I see your face” to match it to a picture? Rodriguez doesn’t quite control, and that was already rejected in United States v. Tello, 924 F.3d 782, 789 (5th Cir. 2019). United States v. Vega-Torres, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23844 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019).
The state had a search warrant for drugs, and, in unfurling a rolled up shirt, found a firearm. The incriminating nature of the gun was immediately apparent to the officer, and it was lawfully seized. State v. Folds, 2019 N.H. LEXIS 166 (Aug. 8, 2019).
SWAT team’s violation of basic elements of no-knock of 1997’s Richards get no qualified immunity in the firefight that followed their unreasonable entry. Fact questions remain for excessive force as well. Geiger v. Sloan, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23849 (5th Cir. Aug 8, 2019). As to no-knock: Continue reading →
Posted inKnock and announce, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on CA5: SWAT team’s firefight after failure to comply with basic no-knock requirements denies them qualified immunity
The tow policy of the police department was discretionary (“may tow”) and defendant hadn’t yet been arrested when the decision was made to tow without giving options. Therefore, the government didn’t meet its burden that the decision to tow was within policy. Also, “The Court concludes that four of the five factors listed in United States v. Sanders weigh against the United States and in favor of a finding that Babadi lacked a non-pretextual community-caretaking justification for deciding to impound James’ car.” United States v. James, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134814 (D. N.M. Aug. 10, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inInventory|Comments Off on D.N.M.: Inventory didn’t follow sufficiently standardized procedures and was pretextual to search
Abandonment of a gun in flight from the police earns defendant a two level USSG § 3C1.2 enhancement for endangering others because of where he tossed it where kids were around. United States v. Davidson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23826 (8th Cir. Aug. 9, 2019).
“The remainder of Matthews’ arguments amount to generalized complaints. For example, he says he was forced to write the motion to suppress. This allegation is belied by the record which contains a motion by counsel. Moreover, counsel moved forward with the motion to suppress and did his best to argue that the gun was not his and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the gun.” No IAC. United States v. Matthews, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134253 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2019).*
Police pulled up on the defendant and made him lift his shirt, completely without legal justification. It is suppressed. United States v. Watson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134627 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2019)*: Continue reading →
Posted inStop and frisk|Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Def’s stop and frisk on a residential street in Detroit was completely without legal justification and suppressed
The order suppressing a laptop search is reversed. The computer was seized under a state search warrant but searched under a federal warrant. Even if probable cause was lacking for the issuance of the search warrant, it was close enough and the good faith exception applies. Also, the 21 day delay between seizure and search was not unreasonable. Nothing in the record suggests a systemic failure, and the officer’s conduct was not sufficiently culpable to warrant suppression. United States v. Jobe, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23798 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2019).
In this 2255, there is no indication that the search warrant requirements for CSLI were violated or that Carpenter would be retroactive. Denied. United States v. Carranza, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134024 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2019).*
Even assuming the search warrant covered only under the roof, defendant’s cell phone was found in plain view on the driveway and it’s incriminating nature was already known to the officers, therefore, readily apparent. United States v. O’Neill, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133852 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2019).*
The trial court found consent to search voluntary on the totality, and its holding is supported by the evidence (which is detailed for us). State v. Burton, 2019 Conn. App. LEXIS 307 (Aug. 13, 2019).*
Posted inCell phones, Consent, Plain view, feel, smell|Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Officers knew def had CP on cell phone; finding cell phone in plain view permitted seizure
Codefendant succeeded in suppressing photographs from an illegally seized camera. This defendant, however, had no property or privacy interest in the camera and thus no standing. State v. McClancy, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 473 (Aug 10, 2019).*
State’s notice of appeal of a suppression motion didn’t include the required certification that the suppression order substantially impaired the prosecution. Without it, there’s no appellate jurisdiction. Commonwealth v. Chism, 2019 PA Super 239, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 780 (Aug. 9, 2019).*
Posted inBurden of pleading, Standing|Comments Off on TN: Codefendant suppressed contents of a camera, but def can’t because no standing
The Citizen Virtual Patrol, a 24/7 public surveillance system, lets anyone watch the city’s streets from anywhere at any time, through as many as 127 cameras.
Posted inPole cameras, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on HuffPo: Newark’s Surveillance System Puts Communities Of Color Under Constant Watch
Amazon’s Ring subsidiary doesn’t just make the wireless security cameras — it also accesses police data to alert residents of potential crimes, encourages users to share recordings of suspicious behavior themselves and connects them with law enforcement.
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on CNBC: Amazon is developing high-tech surveillance tools for an eager customer: America’s police
"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.
