“In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove in a civil action under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The division also holds that the trial court properly limited expert testimony and properly excluded evidence of a gun found during the protective sweep. Finally, the division holds that the trial court’s award of attorney fees [$130,987] and costs to the plaintiff was reasonable, and it remands the case for the trial court to determine the plaintiff’s reasonable appellate attorney fees.”–Syllabus. Mosley v. Daves, 2025 COA 80 (Oct. 2, 2025).
“Based on a totality of the circumstances, Officer Ruffin had probable cause to believe Marion’s flight from police was indicative of criminal activity and that the car, which police already knew contained an assault-styled rifle, likely contained evidence of that criminal activity. In sum, the search of Marion’s car did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it fell within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” United States v. Marion, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196334 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2025).*
Standing doesn’t have to be decided, and both defendants likely have it. On the merits, the stop and detention were with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Thengkamp, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196367 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 29, 2025).*
The state securities department subpoenaed petitioner’s bank records. He has no privacy interest in them under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Peabody v. State Office of the Sec’y of State Sec. Div., 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 328 (Oct. 3, 2025).
“Even if the officer is ultimately incorrect about whether the traffic infraction occurred, a mistaken but reasonable belief does not violate the Fourth Amendment ….” The stop here was reasonable. Thompson v. Wilshire, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196482 (S.D. W. Va. Sep. 5, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion for stopping defendants on a SEPTA bus after a robbery where they matched the description down to one’s specific pants. United States v. Humphrey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196470 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2025).*
The officer doesn’t have to be “mathematically correct” that there was one car length per 10 mph for following too close. The question is reasonableness. United States v. Larin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196625 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2025).*
There is no Fourth Amendment protection in one’s subscriber information provided to a third-party internet service provider and its link to an IP address. State v. Brown, 2025 Haw. LEXIS 268 (Sep. 30, 2025).*
The state contends defendant had no standing in the hotel room being searched, just because he was found in it. Doesn’t matter here: either no standing or renter’s consent justifies the search. Bryant v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7659 (Tex. App. – Dallas Oct. 2, 2025).*
Exigent circumstances justified this entry. “Here, Brandi’s sister called 911 to report that Jackson was beating Brandi and that she could not breathe. When officers arrived at the couple’s home, they could hear screaming, and a bystander told them that ‘he’ was beating her. Because the door was open, both Vinson and Sanchez could also see the couple actively arguing.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25703 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025).*
Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not filing a post-trial Franks motion. Everett v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195631 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2025).*
WSJ: Lawmakers From Both Sides Pressed Pentagon on Legal Basis for Drug Boat Strikes by Lara Seligman, Alexander Ward, and Siobhan Hughes (“Senators on both sides of the aisle pressed the Pentagon’s top lawyer in a closed-door meeting to provide a better legal explanation for striking alleged Latin American drug boats in the Caribbean, according to people with knowledge of the matter. In a classified Senate Armed Services Committee briefing Wednesday, the Pentagon general counsel, Earl Matthews, detailed the legal basis for the military’s attacks ordered by President Trump. Matthews repeatedly referred to Trump’s designation of some Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which he said granted the Defense Department unilateral authority to use military force against them, some of the people said. Matthews refused to provide a written justification for the strikes, which legal experts say is necessary for transparency and accountability.”)
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on If a shooting is a seizure, what about blowing up a boat with people in it?
“Plaintiff’s only purported basis for a Fourth Amendment claim is a vague assertion that ‘handcuff/restraints = false report.’ (Compl. at 6). Liberally construed, this appears to suggest that Plaintiff allegedly was seized without sufficient cause. In the prison context, however, Plaintiff’s temporary placement in hand and leg restraints did not rise to a Fourth Amendment violation.” Stalling v. Castellano, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195651 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025).
In this case, officers got a warrant for a business’s Nest videos to show a crime. Campbell v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 839 (Oct. 2, 2025).*
Defendant’s patdown during this traffic stop was by consent. State v. Mack, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 651 (Sep. 29, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t get access to the unredacted search warrant papers that could reveal the CI’s identity. People v. Bleyden, 2025 NY Slip Op 05197 (1st Dept. Sep. 30, 2025).*
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on Substack: Breaking: Trump Used AI to Scan U.S. Generals’ Faces for Loyalty — and to Root Out Whistleblowers
404 Media: ICE to Buy Tool that Tracks Locations of Hundreds of Millions of Phones Every Day by Joseph Cox (“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has bought access to a surveillance tool that is updated every day with billions of pieces of location data from hundreds of millions of mobile phones, according to ICE documents reviewed by 404 Media. The documents explicitly show that ICE is choosing this product over others offered by the contractor’s competitors because it gives ICE essentially an ‘all-in-one’ tool for searching both masses of location data and information taken from social media. The documents also show that ICE is planning to once again use location data remotely harvested from peoples’ smartphones after previously saying it had stopped the practice.”) If ICE gets it, why can’t the DEA, ATF, or FBI?
Posted inImmigration arrests, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on Reason.com: ICE Arrested a U.S. Citizen—Twice—During Alabama Construction Site Raids. Now He’s Suing.
Having discovered that there was no legal basis for defendant’s stop, asking for papers unreasonably extended the stop. “Broadening Rodriguez to allow officers to inspect documents when they are already aware that no violation has occurred would effectively sanction random license checks of every motorist on the freeway. See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 (1979) (when officers initiate stops lacking an ‘objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits’).” United States v. Rivera-Leal, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192814 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2025). [The government will appeal this.]
Where it was undisputed that a teacher had good reason to believe a student had a gun at school, qualified immunity applies. “Russell had good cause to believe that X.M. might have had a gun at school. Because the other facts in dispute are not material to Russell’s qualified immunity defense, and because Russell—as a matter of law—did not violate X.M.’s clearly established constitutional rights, even under X.M.’s version of the facts, we REVERSE.” Johnson v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25334 (6th Cir. Sep. 30, 2025) (2-1).*
A proven domestic violence order of protection can provide justification for the respondent to give up his firearms under the Fourth Amendment and state constitution. In re Domestic Violence Prot. Ord. For Hernandez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1953 (Sep. 30, 2025) (unpublished).
Probable cause was shown that child pornography would be found on defendant’s cell phone. United States v. Johnston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192356 (E.D. Va. Sep. 29, 2025).*
The arrest warrant here was obtained with no attempted showing of probable cause. The warrant was held until it was time to arrest defendant for a more serious crime, and the officers executing it weren’t the ones who got it in the first place. Therefore, the good faith exception applies. State v. Austin, 2025-Ohio-4543 (9th Dist. Sep. 30, 2025).* [This is just wrong. GF is one thing; but sanitizing it by ignorance in handing off to another?]
After a traffic stop, the smell of marijuana justified extending it. United States v. Sam, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192376 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 30, 2025).*
Defendant shared the iPhone of another person, so he had standing to contest its search. United States v. Powers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192621 (D. Alaska Sep. 30, 2025).
Defendants don’t get qualified immunity. The jury could conclude that more than minimal force was used against plaintiff. Heard v. Ass’n of Ark. Ctys. Risk Mgmt. Fund, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192615 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 30, 2025).*
“Meek-Freeman fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that an inmate does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell. 468 U.S. at 530. Because Meek-Freeman does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell, Upole and Winters did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched his cell.” Freeman v. Moore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192448 (D. Md. Sep. 30, 2025).*
Defendant officer accessing confidential information through misuse of police resources doesn’t get qualified immunity. Taylor v. Hooven, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193226 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2025).*
This geofence warrant was slightly different than Chatrie’s. Still, the good faith exception applies. “In this case, law enforcement acted pursuant to a warrant that was not so facially deficient that the executing officers could not reasonably presume it to be valid. The inquiry is ‘whether the officer could have reasonably believed the materials presented to the magistrate judge … were sufficient to establish probable cause.’ … It is reasonable for law enforcement to have believed the Timing Advance warrant appropriately authorized them to obtain the cell site data described in Attachments A and B. Dickerson’s motion to suppress was properly denied because the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” United States v. Dickerson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192861 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 30, 2025).
By the time of the stop, the officers already had probable cause to believe there were drugs in the car. “Though there could have been a non-criminal reason for all of this conduct, the officers were not obligated to ascribe innocent explanations to it.” United States v. Hicks, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193676 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2025).*
2255 petitioner doesn’t show ineffective assistance of counsel for not properly challenging two searches before his guilty plea because they were valid searches. United States v. Peterson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193615 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2025).*
Plain view of bullet holes in defendant’s truck justified its seizure and transport to police impound lot where it was searched with a warrant. Lee v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7569 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Sep. 30, 2025).
The searches of defendant’s cars were justified by the automobile exception and that moots out his search warrant claim and Franks challenge. United States v. Henderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191965 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 29, 2025).
“Applying these principles, the Court concludes that the warrants were supported by probable cause. The warrant applications described the discovery of a dead body in Lewis’s trailer, along with observations from both Standish and Detective Green indicating potential criminal activity. Standish observed that the body showed evidence of violence and looked ‘beaten up.’ Based on his initial investigation, Detective Green indicated that the death ‘may have been the result of foul play.’ In assessing whether probable cause existed to believe a homicide occurred, the court was entitled to consider Detective Green’s 15 years of law enforcement experience.” United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191941 (D. Mont. Sep. 29, 2025).*
The good faith exception applies even if the Common Pleas court lacked jurisdiction to issue a warrant for a Dropbox account in another jurisdiction. State v. Wharton, 2025-Ohio-4485, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3295 (5th Dist. Sep. 25, 2025).
Summary judgment denied defendant officers. “Under these circumstances, Defendants have not met their heavy burden to show that, as a matter of law, there was an objectively reasonable basis to conclude that a warrantless entry was immediately necessary to protect anyone from serious harm.” I.R. v. Young, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189502 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2025).*
Petitioner’s due process claim against immediate deportation resolves her case at this stage of the proceedings, so the Fourth Amendment claim doesn’t have to be decided yet. Vasquez v. Turek, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190746 (D. Vt. Sep. 25, 2025).*
Defendant failed to make a sufficient Franks offer of proof in her motion to suppress the search for her BAC. Even so, on the merits, a Franks hearing was held and the allegedly false statements had no bearing on the ultimate probable cause question. Rodriguez-Garza v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7568 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Sep. 30, 2025).*
Defendant has no standing to challenge the search of others that affected him, a theory rejected in Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171-172 (1969). United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190766 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 26, 2025).
The officers had arguable probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. “Although Vasquez’s description did not completely line up with Archangel’s height and age, Vinogradov and Crowder were able to view the perpetrators and judge their ages on surveillance footage from the second Subway robbery. … The detectives also saw a composite sketch prepared by a sketch artist. Archangel’s co-defendant, Welch, implicated Archangel and stated that Archangel looked like the person in the composite sketch. … The Mazda Protégé used at the scene of the crimes was located at the apartment complex where Archangel resided. … The detectives found the murder weapon and Archangel’s identification card inside the apartment in which Archangel resided. … As shown in the booking photographs taken in 2017, Archangel also had a scar under his eye similar to the one Dent described on the shooter. …” Archangel v. City of Houston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190656 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2025).*
Posted inProbable cause, Standing|Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Someone else’s search doesn’t affect defendant
Stop was valid for failing to move over for an emergency vehicle on the side of the road. United States v. Overton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25125 (2d Cir. Sep. 29, 2025).*
Smell of marijuana from defendant’s car was probable cause for a search. United States v. Moore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189623 (W.D. La. Sep. 8, 2025).*
“Consequently, this Court finds that the search warrant affidavit did not give rise to probable cause to search both residences. However, for the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the good-faith exception to the warrant applies.” But, it is not so obviously lacking in probable cause. United States v. Sloma, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189641 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 8, 2025).*
Remand not required. Inevitable discovery applies in any event. State v. St. Amant, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1808 (La. App. 5 Cir Sep. 24, 2025).*
NYTimes: ‘Biometric Exit’ Quietly Expands Across U.S. Airports, Unnerving Some by Claire Fahy (“René Rodriguez accompanied his daughter to Ireland last month as she prepared for a fall semester abroad. As he boarded the flight from Boston Logan International Airport to Shannon Airport, he found two federal officers in the Jetway taking photos of passengers with their cellphones … Those officers were part of an expanding federal program called biometric exit, which involves taking photos of passengers leaving the country and applying facial recognition technology to ensure that travelers match their identification documents. This process is known as facial comparison. For foreign nationals, the photos can remain in a database for up to 75 years. For U.S. citizens, the photos are matched to their passports and deleted within 12 hours, according to the Department of Homeland Security. On Sept. 15, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs approved a proposed rule, clearing the way for the program to expand to all airports, seaports and land crossings across the country. While the approval formalized the expansion, in reality the program has been growing for years and is now in use at dozens of airports and at seaports.”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NYTimes: ‘Biometric Exit’ Quietly Expands Across U.S. Airports, Unnerving Some
Defendant tried to retrieve a suitcase from Southwest Airlines in Omaha while not having been on a flight or having a claim check. The suspected bag arrived on the next flight from Phoenix, and it was taken by a SWA employee, locked away, and inventoried according to airline policies. Drugs were found. There’s no proof that the airline employee was acting as a governmental agent at the time of the search. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190697 (D. Neb. Aug. 8, 2025).
Even if the first warrant was invalid because of allegedly involuntary statements, it was separable from the second for another place based on other information. And the statements weren’t involuntary anyway. Denied. United States v. Panetti, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189891 (D. Minn. Sep. 26, 2025).*
The court disagrees that defendant was blocked in and “seized” on an apartment parking lot. Then there was a plain view. State v. Vargas, 2025-Ohio-4482 (2d Dist. Sep. 26, 2025).*
There was probable cause for defendant’s stop for a traffic offense. The smell of marijuana from the car and defendant’s admissions justified the vehicle search. State v. Waters, 2025-Ohio-4479 (1st Dist. Sep. 26, 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.
