The forensic search of a cell phone can occur anytime between seizure and trial and still be timely. State v. Lowry, 2025 La. LEXIS 1481 (La. Oct. 25, 2025).
2255 ineffective assistance of counsel challenge for Franks violation fails for no offer of proof. Martinez v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210120 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2025).*
The challenge to the search warrant fails. There was probable cause, the good faith exception would apply, and it was particular. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209992 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 11, 2025).*
The officer here had reasonable suspicion defendant was trespassing or stealing or both when stopped. United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209875 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 17, 2025).*
Defendant argues that the search of his car was void under Gant because he was handcuffed outside it. There was, however, probable cause for a vehicle search. United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209424 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 3, 2025).*
Nexus shown to phone: “Appellant argues the affidavits submitted in support of the search of his cell phone are insufficiently particularized and contain only broad language about the tendency of people to store information on their phone. We disagree. Although the affidavits contain some language that is arguably ‘boilerplate,’ they also contain specific facts tying the phone to the offenses being investigated. … [¶] The affidavits state that appellant was arrested and charged with stalking based on allegations that he repeatedly sent unwanted and threatening messages to Balderas.” Esparza v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8242 (Tex. App. – Dallas Oct. 24, 2025).*
No affidavit or standing means no standing: “Here, defendant has failed to meet his burden to establish a privacy interest in the subject cell phone. Because defendant has made no showing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the seized device or cellular data contained therein, he does not have standing to bring this motion.” United States v. Crule, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210281 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2025).*
BBC: Armed police handcuff teen after AI mistakes [Doritos chip bag] for gun in US by Liv McMahon & Imran Rahman-Jones (“A US teenager was handcuffed by armed police after an artificial intelligence (AI) system mistakenly said he was carrying a gun – when really he was holding a packet of crisps. ‘Police showed up, like eight cop cars, and then they all came out with guns pointed at me talking about getting on the ground,’ 16-year-old Baltimore pupil Taki Allen told local outlet WMAR-2 News. Baltimore County Police Department said their officers ‘responded appropriately and proportionally based on the information provided at the time’. It said the AI alert was sent to human reviewers who found no threat – but the principal missed this and contacted the school’s safety team, who ultimately called the police.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Baltimore: AI identifies bag of Doritos in school as a gun
Imagine: Marketplace: What it’s like to have an AI wearable record everything you say by Matt Levin (“A new generation of wearable AI gadgets can record, transcribe and analyze your every interaction … There’s no widespread adoption of these always-on AI wearables just yet. But if you work in AI, chances are you’ve probably seen them. Although it’s more distressing if you know they’re probably there but you can’t see them. ‘I just always have my guard up,’ said Allie Miller, an AI consultant for Fortune 500 companies. ‘I find myself looking around a lot more. I find myself looking at people’s wrists or necks or ears. I find myself tracking where the rest of their team members are. It’s not a great position to be in.’ At a recent AI conference, Miller found out another speaker secretly recorded what she thought was a private conversation without her consent. In most states, that’s actually legal. The covert recorder wasn’t one of the newest generations of AI wearables. But Miller sees the possibility of a near future where everyone needs to assume they’re being recorded at all times.”)
Now imagine that it’s obtained by search warrant or subpoena, or abandoned, or uploaded to the cloud.
Posted inPrivileges|Comments Off on Marketplace: What it’s like to have an AI wearable record everything you say
NPR: As strikes on alleged drug boats grow, so do questions about their legality and goal by Franco Ordoñez & Ryan Lucas (“The Trump administration has yet to provide public evidence to support its assertions that the individuals on the boats were cartel members and that the vessels were transporting drugs, raising concerns about the legality of the strikes and the real goals of the White House campaign. Prior to the strikes in the Pacific, the U.S. military had been ramping up the number of troops and naval ships in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela. International law experts say it’s an unprecedented amount of military hardware to confront suspected drug boats, which has fueled questions about whether the operation is about countering narcotics trafficking or instead toppling Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.”)
Survivors of a boat strike earlier this week were sent home, not arrested for drug smuggling.
Posted inExcessive force|Comments Off on NPR: As strikes on alleged drug boats grow, so do questions about their legality and goal
Netflix contracted with defendant to make a series. When it fell through after paying him $44M, they believed they’d been defrauded. The search warrant for what had been completed of the series was potential evidence and properly sought under the warrant. United States v. Rinsch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208335 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025).*
The government satisfied inevitable discovery here. By the time of the protective sweep they had probable cause and were going to get a warrant. United States v. Gober, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208607 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 23, 2025).*
The affidavit for search warrant here failed to show probable cause under established case law, and the motion to suppress was properly granted. [The good faith exception is not discussed.] State v. Nagle, 2025 Minn. LEXIS 579 (Oct. 22, 2025).*
Defendant was stopped as a suspect in a kidnapping, and his phones were validly seized. The government showed probable cause as to one phone but not the other, and even the good faith exception doesn’t save it. One phone not suppressed, one is. United States v. Chowdhury, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208381 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025).*
What shows the basis for seeking a search warrant is not inadmissible “hearsay.” Williams v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8224 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Oct. 23, 2025).
“But the government has grounds to search a known drug dealer’s residence when the dealer is ‘engaged in continual and ongoing operations typically involving large amounts of drugs.’ … In these circumstances, a judge can ‘infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug trafficking.’ … A warrant affidavit fortifies this inference when it provides additional evidence connecting the dealer’s operations to the residence. … Bradley was a known drug dealer engaged in continuous and ongoing trafficking operations.” United States v. Bradley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27517, (6th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025).*
The affidavit for this tracking warrant was based on probable cause, even if the CI’s story is discounted. United States v. Barber, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208640 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2025).*
Even if the oath or affirmation technically fails here, the good faith exception saves the warrant. State v. Lucas, 2025-Ohio-4863, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3605 (5th Dist. Oct. 22, 2025).
“We conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. Giving deference to the magistrate, we conclude that it did not err when it determined that the affidavit provided probable cause to support the search warrant. The affidavit provided a sufficient nexus between the first-degree murder based on aggravated child abuse of the victim and a search of the Defendant’s cell phone. The affidavit included the investigating officer’s experience in working on homicides and provided specific details of the investigation. The investigators met with the victim’s parents and determined that the Defendant was in exclusive control of the victim while Mother was at work. The affidavit also included the Defendant’s statement that he tripped over a toy, fell down the stairs, and dropped the victim. …” State v. Clark, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 508 (Oct. 23, 2025).*
Defendant’s after-filed affidavit of standing was sufficient to give him standing, but he loses on consent. United States v. Anthony, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209120 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2025).*
USMJ just doesn’t buy that the officer could see drugs in defendant’s hand when he was running. After the stop, they were all in his pockets. United States v. Méndez-Rodríguez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209314 (D.P.R. Oct. 22, 2025)*:
Merely lifting a suitcase or bag is not a search, whereas squeezing (Bond) would be. United States v. Fernandez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27567 (10th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025).
The odor of marijuana coming from a house is still probable cause to get a warrant for it. State v. Reis, 2025 La. LEXIS 1444 (Oct. 16, 2025).*
Google sent child pornography images to NCMEC without human involvement based on its software. That was addressed on the merits, and it did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland in resolving defense counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Wilson v. Gamboa, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27597 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy the open area of a cannabis business. West v. Alexander (In re West), 2025 NY Slip Op 05858, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5967 (3d Dept. Oct. 23, 2025).*
In this bank fraud case, the attorney-client privilege review of defendant’s email was “imperfect” but not so bad that the indictment should be dismissed. It clearly doesn’t rise to the level of “outrageous.” Yes, the review could have been done differently, and thus better, but what they did caused no prejudice at all. United States v. Ryan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27161 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2025).
The SANE interview was enough for probable cause for the DNA search warrant. In re C.P.C., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8067 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) Oct. 21, 2025).*
Finding firearms justified extending the stop. United States v. McMillan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205885 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 20, 2025).*
Defendant’s name was nowhere on the paperwork for this rented car. While sorting this out, the drug dog arrived and alerted. The extension of the stop was reasonable for the paperwork concerns. State v. Martinez, 2025-Ohio-4786 (12th Dist. Oct. 20, 2025).*
For reasonable suspicion the standard is objective reasonableness. Here, the defendant argued subjective intent two ways: embracing it and rejecting it. United States v. Duggan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206037 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2025)*:
Use of plaintiff’s non-privileged prison calls as evidence was not a Fourth Amendment violation. The fact attorney-client calls were also seized but were segregated and not used as evidence doesn’t state a claim. Criscuolo v. Brandow, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205199 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2025). (But what did they learn from the attorney-client calls, if anything? Doesn’t say. Also note that this is a civil case, not a criminal case, so not purely exclusion.)
There was reasonable suspicion for this parole search for a firearm. Such information doesn’t get stale fast. United States v. Quinn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204996 (M.D. La. Oct. 17, 2025).*
Overtinted windows justified this stop. State v. Dugas, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1948 ( La. App. 3 Cir Oct. 15, 2925).*
Defendant was driving a stolen car, but it’s a difficult question whether he knew it was when he was driving it. So, going to the merits instead, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause for the search. United States v. Cherrington, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205211 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2025).*
There is no Fourth Amendment claim by a dead person. “Because the investigation failures and denial of access to the Courts are based on facts alleged to have occurred entirely after decedent’s death, Plaintiff cannot assert these claims either on decedent’s behalf or as his heir, next of kin, or personal representative.” Barajas v. Saline Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203867 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 16, 2025), quoting A.A. ex rel. Grady v. City of Florissant, 2015 WL 5561830, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 21, 2015) (“[A]s a matter of law, plaintiffs cannot proceed on claims based on any search conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment that occurred after [decedent’s] death,”) (citing Guyton v. Phillips, 606 F.2d 248, 250 (9th Cir. 1979).
“[T]he officer here clearly articulated that she believed that the car leaving the paved portion of the road was not normal driving and was an ‘indicator of possible impairment.’” State v. Norton, 2025 VT 56 (Oct. 17, 2025).*
“[T]he Fourth Amendment requires an official seizing and detaining a person for a psychiatric evaluation to have probable cause to believe that the person is dangerous to [her]self or others. Machan v. Olney, 958 F.3d 1212, 1214 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099, 1102 (6th Cir. 1997)).” Plater v. Doe, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27135 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2025).*
MSNBC: Just how many ‘Kavanaugh stops’ have American citizens been forced to endure? by Steve Benen (“Many American citizens have been detained recently by ICE agents who thought they might be undocumented immigrants. But how many is ‘many’? When the Supreme Court weighed in on Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo last month, the Republican-appointed justices cleared the way for federal immigration officials to use racial profiling. A concurring opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh proved to be especially important. As the Trump appointee concluded, ICE agents can legally detain someone if they have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person might be undocumented. Kavanaugh envisioned a real-world model that was efficient and effective.”)
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on MSNBC: Just how many ‘Kavanaugh stops’ have American citizens been forced to endure?
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in talking to himself in his building elevator. Therefore, Title III didn’t apply. He knew there was video recording but not audio. “While in the elevator, Plaintiff writes that that is when he said to himself that he ‘shot him in the face should’ve killed him.’” Rainey v. Ortyl, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203507 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025).
Plaintiff sued a law enforcement officer for following him into his house and Tasing him. The facts pled defeat qualified immunity because this violated clearly established law. Dukes v. Sheriff of Levy Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26953 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025).*
The search of defendant’s motel room was valid by probation search waiver. United States v. Perry, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204239 (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2025).*
“For the reasons detailed below, the Court finds that Trooper Show did not have reasonable suspicion that Defendants had committed a traffic violation but did have reasonable suspicion that Defendants were engaged in drug trafficking, thereby allowing him lawfully to conduct the stop.” United States v. Loya, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204086 (D. Or. Oct. 16, 2025).*
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the officer who prepared an electronic BAC warrant in the patrol car was not sworn to tell the truth based on the body cam. That was a fatal defect. State v. Chavez, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8031 (Tex. App. – Austin Oct. 17, 2025).
When defendant’s DL was run, it was revealed he was a registered sex offender not allowed to be around children and there was an 8- or 9-year-old girl in the back seat. That was reasonable suspicion. State v. Navarro, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8033 (Tex. App. – Austin Oct. 17, 2025).*
“The appellant also summarily argues that the trial court erred by limiting the appellant’s ability to establish a Franks violation. We disagree. [¶] The appellant has failed to provide citations to statute, case law, rules of evidence, or learned treatise from this or any other jurisdiction to support her argument. The appellant even fails to present a standard of review.” The issue is waived. State v. Rush, 2025-Ohio-4760 (5th Dist. Oct. 15, 2025).*
"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.
