Defendant had standing as an occasional overnight guest in his ex-girlfriend’s apartment when he was there when the police arrived to arrest him. The search of another room was neither valid as a search incident or protective sweep. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Ackins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184920 (S.D. Ill. Sep. 19, 2025).
Defendant’s admission he had a gun on him was probable cause. People v. Turner, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 7637 (Sep. 19, 2025).*
Defendant’s struggle and assault on the officers obviated any claim that he couldn’t be ordered out of the car. People v. Day, 2025 IL App (4th) 241371, 2025 Ill. App. LEXIS 1076 (Sep. 18, 2025).*
On plain error review of defendant’s arrest and custody, the record wasn’t developed for that, just guilt or innocence. Without an adequate record, no plain error. United States v. Otero, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24344 (6th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).*
Defendant was a passenger in the car that was stopped. While he wouldn’t have standing in the car, he persuaded the court that the stop lacked justification based on credibility of witnesses, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Wynn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184598 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 19, 2025).
On post-conviction, petitioner’s illegal arrest claim is defaulted because it should have been raised in the original case. But, it wasn’t even illegal. United States v. Orlandella, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184747 (D. Mass. Sep. 19, 2025).*
The officer making an arrest for assault doesn’t have to consider affirmative defenses unless they’re apparent. Here, the officer was on notice, but there was probable cause anyway. United States v. McGrady, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181723 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2025).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waives his Fourth Amendment claim. Hogenkamp v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184537 (W.D. Wis. Sep. 18, 2025).*
Posted inProbable cause, Standing, Waiver|Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Def succeeds in suppressing a stop when he even lacked standing to challenge the search
On defendant’s motion for new trial, the court properly limited cross-examination over statements in a search warrant affidavit that would have led to mini-trials and misled the jury. United States v. Payne, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184595 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2025):
Posted inOath or affirmation|Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Trial cross-exam was properly limited into SW affidavit statements what would have led to minitrials
Omitted information didn’t negate probable cause. “When considering the totality of the other facts included in the affidavit, the negative lab results do not negate the existence of probable cause for the search warrant. Here, the trial court admonished the State for this oversight and agreed that the omitted lab result is ‘not a major part of the warrant, but still [is] a factor.’ Nevertheless, the trial court ruled that ‘there was enough presented’ to support the issuance of the warrant. We agree. This assignment of error is without merit.” State v. Hale, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1749 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 19, 2025).*
“Much of Defendant’s argument simply argues inferences from the evidence in a manner more favorable to his position that he was unable to give voluntary consent based on his injury from the collision or his impairment, but we are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact which are not challenged as unsupported by the evidence.” State v. Armstrong, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 607 (Sep. 17, 2025).*
The court doesn’t find the officer’s testimony there was a “strong odor” of marijuana coming from the car to be credible. People v. Turnbull, 2025 VI SUPER 26, 2025 V.I. LEXIS 32 (Super. Ct. July 21, 2025).*
Posted inProbable cause|Comments Off on LA1: Information negating PC should have been included, but doesn’t matter here
A wallet in one’s pocket is subject to search incident. State v. Beyer, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 822 (Sep. 17, 2025).*
Reaffirming: “No longer may local antiscavenging ordinances support a finding that garbage placed outside defendants’ property for collection is not yet abandoned. No longer may defendants claim that an officer conducting a trash pull has committed a trespass. And no longer may defendants claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in discarded trash.” State v. Lowman, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 809 (Sep. 17, 2025).*
Police responded to a civil standby for recovery of an allegedly stolen motorcycle. They let the person they believed to be the true owner leave with it. They get qualified immunity. Thompson v. Cockrell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23991 (8th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).*
Reasonable suspicion for this DUI stop was the gait of defendant walking toward his car. State v. Nockels, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 812 (Sep. 17, 2025).
Plaintiff was hurt during police response to a domestic dispute. “Hoover filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Due violated his Fourth Amendment rights when he unlawfully entered his home and used excessive force against him. The district court denied summary judgment to Due on both claims. Due appeals, arguing that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Because a reasonable juror could conclude that Due’s warrantless entry into Hoover’s home was unlawful, and that his use of force to effectuate that entry was unreasonable, we affirm.” Hoover v. Due, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24046 (6th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).*
A search warrant for the person is presumptively constitutional. Finding no drugs, the stop then can turn to reasonable suspicion for continuing it, and the officers had that. State v. Spies, 2025 Haw. LEXIS 243 (Sep. 16, 2025).
Plaintiff’s parole search waiver for his house includes his curtilage. Kennedy v. White Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180862 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 16, 2025).
Admission of a photograph of defendant’s house taken from off the property did not violate the curtilage. As to his Franks challenge: “‘Mere imprecision does not, by itself, show falsity.’ Moody, 931 F.3d at 372. An inaccuracy that is ‘innocent or even negligent’ will not meet the high standard required to warrant a hearing. Id. at 371. Defendant has at best shown ambiguous or imprecise language and fails to show an intentional falsity.” United States v. Newbold, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182008 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 17, 2025).*
West Virginia continues to adhere to the rule that objective intentions matter for a stop, not subjective ones. State v. Roberts, 2025 W. Va. LEXIS 335 (Sep. 16, 2025).*
Plaintiff stated a claim for excessive force for police officers injuring him during a pipeline protest where he had to be cut out of his sleeping dragon device. He was only committing a non-violent misdemeanor when he was injured. Locke v. County of Hubbard, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23990 (8th Cir. Sep. 17, 2025).
The state succeeded in admitting as 404(b) evidence the controlled buy that led to the search warrant to “tell[ ] the story of these crimes.” It was presented on appeal as plain error, but it was held not to be error at all. [It didn’t help that appellant was a sovereign citizen who got himself excluded from the courtroom.] State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-4359 (1st Dist. Sep. 17, 2025). This appears common in Ohio:
The warrant for “all data” on defendant’s cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, even though it was limited to two weeks before the murder. Yet, the state’s case was so strong, the cell phone data was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Correa, 2025 Conn. LEXIS 185 (Sep. 16, 2025).
In a state where growing marijuana can be legal, an illegal grow warrant was invalid for not excluding all the ways legal marijuana and hemp could be grown. State v. Chixu Huang, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1821 (Sep. 16, 2025) (unpublished).*
Warrants are for places, not necessarily people, and the nexus requirement is to the place. “Mr. Rebollar-Gonzalez’s attempts to dissociate himself from criminal activity is unavailing, and therefore his own actions contribute to a finding that probable cause existed to search the Old Hudson Road apartment. Even if the search warrant application needed to show probable cause to suspect that Mr. Rebollar himself had committed a crime, it does so. …” United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180867 (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2025).*
Posted inOverbreadth, Probable cause|Comments Off on CT: “All data” warrant was unreasonable, but harmless on all the facts
Having voluntarily given up her cell phone passcode, she can’t suppress its contents. United States v. Curry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23865 (3d Cir. Sep. 16, 2025).
Past detention for alleged unlawful reasons doesn’t give Art. III standing for possible future detention. City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181699 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 15, 2025).*
Cross-motions for seized money in a fraud scheme. The victim gets it. In re Search Warrant No. 2482SW00010 Dated Mar. 22, 2024, 2025 Mass. Super. LEXIS 398 (Norfolk Sep. 8, 2025).*
A jailer watching alleged excessive force by a guard does not get qualified immunity for failing to intervene. Nute v. White, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23955 (11th Cir. Sep. 16, 2025).*
The fact defendant was asked four times for consent doesn’t make it coercive. Arnold v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7228 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Sep. 11, 2025).
Velez finally contends that no reasonable officer could have concluded that Velez was resisting arrest or detention because he was not given an opportunity to submit before force was used on him. But the cases Velez cites for this proposition analyzed this factor in the context of Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims. … We therefore address this argument in our excessive-force analysis. Nor do we see how this argument would alter our thinking here, where the video evidence clearly depicts Velez first verbally refusing to get out and then physically resisting the officers’ attempts to achieve compliance. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, the officers had probable cause to arrest Velez, and that Velez’s wrongful-arrest and false-imprisonment claims fail as a result. Velez v. Eutzy, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23885 (1st Cir. Sep. 16, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective in litigating the search claim below. It was substantially dealt with on the direct appeal where a DVR device that probably recorded a drug transaction was a “drug record.” State v. Groce, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3158 (10th Dist. Sep. 16, 2025);* State v. Walker, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3157 (10th Dist. Sep. 16, 2025).*
The computer search here wasn’t authorized by the probable cause showing, and it wasn’t harmless error. Probable cause for one device doesn’t permit search of all. State v. Schult, 343 Or. App. 376 (Sep. 10, 2025).
“Here, Boudreau’s Franks argument fails because even if Detective Wafstet knew and failed to disclose that Boudreau used only his cellphone to communicate with ‘Mia,’ this omission was immaterial. As we have explained, there was probable cause to believe that Boudreau possessed child pornography. If Detective Wafstet lied or omitted material facts regarding Boudreau’s method of communication with ‘Mia,’ it would have had no effect on the fair probability that Boudreau possessed child pornography.” United States v. Boudreau, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23880 (9th Cir. Sep. 16, 2025).*
Defendant had no connection to the house that was searched, and he even lived in another state. Therefore, he has no standing. Ayala v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 387 (Sep. 16, 2025).*
Deftechtimes: Financial spy tool yanked from ICE after agents used it to hunt immigrants by Ruta Deshpande (“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have lost access to a major database that tracked money transfers between the U.S. and Mexico. ICE agents and other law enforcement agencies have used the Transaction Record Analysis Center, or TRAC, for years to monitor hundreds of millions of wire transfers. Western Union and government authorities created it in 2014 through an agreement. Its original purpose was to help ICE agents fight money laundering and drug trafficking.”)
Just being naked in bed in a hotel room doesn’t give standing. Defendant had to show he either was the renter or there by permission of the renter. Here, nothing was offered on standing other than being there. United States v. Collins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179306 (S.D. Ga. Sep. 12, 2025), adopting 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180545 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 14, 2025).
The affidavit for warrant here was not bare bones, and the good faith exception applies. United States v. Booker, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23478 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2025).*
Reasonable suspicion can be by collective knowledge. State v. Paul, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 435 (Sep. 11, 2025).*
Posted inSCOTUS|Comments Off on techdirt: The Judiciary Is Breaking Down: Federal Judges Now Openly Revolt Against SCOTUS Shadow Docket During Live Court Hearing
Retrieving a bag of drugs from defendant’s underwear with probable cause was still reasonable. The court of appeals erred in reversing. Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 2025 Va. LEXIS 44 (Sep. 11, 2025) (revg Hubbard v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. App. 384, 898 S.E.2d 386 (2024) (posted here)):
"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.
