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).*
There is no requirement in the Sixth Circuit for a cell phone search protocol to be specified in the search warrant. United States v. Lanham, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202782 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2025).
There was probable cause defendant was running an illegal marijuana grow based on what equipment had been acquired and huge electricity use, among other things. State v. Wong, 2025 Ore. App. LEXIS 1700 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
Officers called a magistrate about getting a search warrant and the magistrate said to get consent. The consent obtained was valid, and was supported by a plain view. Robinson v. State, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 396 (Oct. 14, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality here, and some of the information the officer relied upon was two months old. State v. Porter, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 892 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
There is no standing in a contraband cell phone in prison. United States v. Pouncy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202490 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2025).
The trial court properly limited the time frame of this warrant when an overbreadth challenge was made. State v. Demons, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7776 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025).*
Officers found defendant shot, and they cut his pants looking for gunshot wounds while EMTs were on their way. Drugs fell out of the pocket. This was all based on exigent circumstances. United States v. Beverly, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202872 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2025).*
Driving with lights off and stopping in an intersection and spinning tires was reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Walls, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 690 (Oct. 14, 2025).*
United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203218 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2025) involved prosecution of a police officer for perjury during a Franks hearing:
Search incident to an arrest for an outstanding warrant was valid. There was no duty to check first to see if it was possible the warrant had been recalled or quashed. United States v. Lockridge, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203313 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 15, 2025).
“The minor inconsistencies in witness statements in the affidavit also do not offset the probable cause established throughout the affidavit. Under the totality of the circumstances approach used to evaluate warrant affidavits, those inconsistencies should not be considered in a vacuum, but in relation to the entirety of the facts presented in the affidavit.” United States v. Stiff, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203259 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2025).*
The trial objection to social media materials was relevance. In a motion for new trial it was lack of probable cause. No plain error, and it was largely cumulative. Taylor v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 231 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
The trash pull here was corroborated by other information and that provided probable cause. United States v. Stewart, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202492 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2025).*
A frisk that went inside defendant’s pants was unreasonable. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202764 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025).
When a stop revealed a holster when the defendant got out of the vehicle, a further intrusion was justified to look for the gun. People v. Mitchell, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 8264 (Oct. 14, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t contest the stop, just its extension, which was with reasonable suspicion of being under the influence. State v. Brown, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 898 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t clearly ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for his cell phone with a catch-all phrase. “ And we are aware of no precedent–and Moss cites none–supporting the notion that an unlimited date range, either alone or combined with a catch-all clause that is limited like the one here, is enough to nudge an otherwise valid warrant outside the bounds of the particularity requirement.” Moss v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 226 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
Accessing the ALPR system to look at license plate location is not a search requiring a warrant. Commonwealth v. Church, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 627 (Oct. 14, 2025) (unpublished):
Under the Puerto Rico Constitution, unlawfully seized evidence is inadmissible, and this includes forfeiture cases. Cruz v. Commonwealth 2025 PR App. LEXIS 2293 (Sept. 23, 2025).
The probable cause question here doesn’t have to be decided. Suffice it to say that there’s enough that it’s in good faith. United States v. Bridges, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201510 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2025).*
CoA denied. “Jones has not made the requisite showing. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. We do not consider his newly raised claims that defense counsel’s purported ineffectiveness constitutes ‘cause’ to excuse his procedurally defaulted claims, that his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim at trial ….” Jones v. Mississippi, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26557 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).*
Plaintiffs state enough of a continued seizure in a traffic stop to get to a jury. Rodriguez had been decided before this happened. Caton v. Salamon, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26546 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).*
“Assuming, without deciding, that the Cellphone Warrant was overbroad due to lack of a timeframe limitation, this finding would not mean that all evidence seized under the cellphone warrant is subject to suppression. The proper remedy is to suppress only the evidence that was generated during time periods for which probable cause was not established. A finding of temporal overbreadth ‘does not require suppression of all of the items seized pursuant to the warrant[. Rather,] the proper approach to this dilemma is to sever the infirm portion of the search warrant from the remainder which passes constitutional muster.’ …” United States v. Bryson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201150 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 22, 2025).
This search warrant “set forth ample indicia of probable cause.” United States v. Busbee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200311 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*
“Multiple factors coalesced here to provide Agent Grant with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing: Garza-Alaniz was driving from an area of Texas near the Mexico border known as a source of illegal drugs all the way to New York City without a place to stay or any specific plans for what to do during his purported week-long vacation with his girlfriend; he did not have a driver’s license (and neither did his girlfriend); he was travelling with a common drug smuggling vessel; he initially was more nervous than the average motorist stopped by police; and he remained so notwithstanding Agent Grant’s efforts to put him at ease.” [The government’s other factors aren’t considered.] United States v. Garza-Alaniz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200292 (N.D. Ala. Sep. 4, 2025).*
The affidavit for this search warrant was so lacking in probable cause that it could not be relied upon, even for good faith. All it showed was the defendant was someone who was associated with an apartment and might have kept stuff there. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200355 (D. Minn. Sep. 5, 2025), adopted 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199032 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025):
The warrant said without the blanks filled in: “‘Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this ___ day of August 2024. Time ___.’ The warrant also contained a partially pre-filled date line which read ‘Dated this ___ day of August 2024. Time ___.’” It was actually October. If the dates could be figured out, these were typos that could be overlooked. State v. Sadler, 2025-Ohio-4665 (5th Dist. Oct. 9, 2025).
The police here got a warrant for conversations recorded by a PlayStation. State v. Deal, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 484 (Oct. 10, 2025).*
One doesn’t get discovery to attempt to show a Franks violation. “In this case Defendant seeks additional discovery because he argues that, without it, he otherwise ‘cannot meaningfully challenge the validity of the warrant or the truthfulness of the affidavit.’ … But hope that the recordings might contain material that Defendant can use to challenge the validity or truthfulness of the warrant is not enough to compel disclosure. Sanders, 106 F.4th at 474-75.” United States v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200436 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Staleness|Comments Off on OH5: Typo on SW date could be overlooked if it can be otherwise figured out
"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.
