M.D.Ala.: Open carry is not RS

Alabama permits open carry, and doing so is not reasonable suspicion. United States v. Mitchell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156980 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Open carry is not RS

CA9: Day care centers pervasively regulated for administrative searches

Child day care centers are sufficiently regulated by the state that they may be inspected. Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20697 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025).

Defendant’s challenge to the basis for his stop that led instead to a police chase ended by stopsticks on I-80 was a challenge to the credibility of the officer, found against him by the district court. There were two bases for the stop. Meth and cocaine were thrown from the car in flight. Marijuana was smelled at the car when first stopped, then he took off. United States v. Kitchens, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20501 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*

A court rule and a statute on juvenile arrests can be harmonized, and both apply. State v. A.M.W., 2025 Wash. LEXIS 433 (Aug. 14, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA9: Day care centers pervasively regulated for administrative searches

WaPo: Checkpoint with ICE agents met by protesters in D.C.

WaPo: Checkpoint with ICE agents met by protesters in D.C. by Emma Uber and Lauren Morello (“Department of Homeland Security agents stopped cars at a busy intersection for seat belt violations and broken taillights.”):

Continue reading
Posted in Immigration checkpoints, Roadblocks | Comments Off on WaPo: Checkpoint with ICE agents met by protesters in D.C.

W.D.N.C.: Photographic evidence of basis of stop not required

Where the stop is based on partial covering of the LPN, a photograph is not required at the suppression hearing. United States v. Tribble, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156885 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2025).

Plaintiff’s issue of “the application for and execution of a search warrant” wasn’t presented below and was waived. Kemp v. Belanger, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20617 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*

Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied as untimely. United States v. Watkins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156589 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 13, 2025).*

This is the appeal of re-sentencing after defendant lost on the claim that the CI recorded him in his house, on which he lost. State v. Taylor, 2025-Ohio-2853 (4th Dist. Aug. 1, 2025).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Photographic evidence of basis of stop not required

TX8 sustains geofence warrant

TX8, El Paso without much discussion sustains a geofence warrant. Also the warrants for the phone and social media accounts were issued with probable cause and were particular. Alvarez v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6106 (Tex. App. – El Paso Aug. 13, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Cell phones, geofence, Social media warrants | Comments Off on TX8 sustains geofence warrant

CA8: Running when asked about a gun was RS

“Running in response to the question about the gun is what gave the officers reasonable suspicion to think he might have one.” Then he tossed his gun “while tussling with officers.” United States v. Chumley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20497 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).

Defendant’s discovery had a scanning error and the search warrant affidavit had every other page copied. It was discovered before his plea and a complete copy was provided. Maybe defendant didn’t get to see it, but it almost certainly had no effect on his decision to plead guilty. What was missing only showed more evidence of guilt. The district court didn’t err in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Moreover, he received great benefits from the guilty plea, like dropping the consecutive gun count. United States v. Milam, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20573 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*

Defendant didn’t file a motion to suppress before trial, and it’s waived for appeal. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20539 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on CA8: Running when asked about a gun was RS

W.D.N.Y.: No exigency shown for warrantless domestic entry

Based on the complaint, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry into the home for a domestic disturbance that had calmed way down before police got there. Intertwined is the qualified immunity claim, and there’s not enough here to dismiss the case. [Although, reading between the lines, the case is going to ultimately fail because the police had been there before for the same reason.] Ghani v. Town of W. Seneca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155767 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the officer knew defendant had an active warrant. The motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Songer, 2025 MT 176 (Aug. 12, 2025).*

Petitioner’s habeas claim is that the evidence wasn’t sufficient for conviction, but it’s really just an attempt to relitigate the Fourth Amendment claim. Wood v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20417 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2025).*

Appellant’s DNA was properly obtained by statute and re-analyzed later. His Fourth Amendment and state constitutional claims weren’t presented below and are waived. State v. Munoz-Hernandez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1612 (Aug. 12, 2025).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: No exigency shown for warrantless domestic entry

N.D.Ill.: A mistake on the address was made up for by other detail; no Franks violation

“To the extent the lack of an address lessens a warrant’s particularity, the other information more than makes up for it. … In this case, Walters highlights one factual error: No glass door bearing the numbers ‘13624’ existed when the officers conducted the controlled purchase or sought the warrant. But that statement wasn’t ‘material,’ because probable cause existed without it. As discussed above, Arbisi’s affidavit was credible and demonstrated a fair probability that contraband would be found at the location. The officers established that the CI didn’t have drugs, observed them enter the store, and monitored the CI as they regrouped with the officers. The false statement, therefore, didn’t impact the probable cause determination. What’s more, even if it were material, Walters doesn’t sufficiently allege that it was made knowingly or recklessly.” United States v. Walters, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155451 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2025).*

The trial court erred in finding no probable cause for defendant’s arrest. There was reasonable suspicion for FSTs, and the result there justified the arrest. State v. Cha, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6051 (Tex. App. – Dallas Aug. 12, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising standing where the government conceded standing and it had nothing to do with the trial court’s decision. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for putting exhibits into evidence at the suppression hearing to an attempt to rebut reasonable suspicion where they had nothing to do with the court’s decision. United States v. Spellman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153786 (D. Neb. Aug. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: A mistake on the address was made up for by other detail; no Franks violation

S.D.W.Va.: RS determined at the time of stop, not by what found after

A “black man with a waving a gun” did not justify defendant’s stop. When officers arrived, he was just there. No gun visible or apparent. Reasonable suspicion is determined at the time, not after the fact. United States v. Wilder, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155580 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 12, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: RS determined at the time of stop, not by what found after

D.C.Cir.: Pole camera not governed by mosaic theory

Pole camera surveillance of a resident was reasonable and the mosaic theory did not apply. United States v. Green, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20410 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Pole cameras | Comments Off on D.C.Cir.: Pole camera not governed by mosaic theory

Latin Times: Trump Administration Pushes to Use Spanish Language as Grounds for Immigration Stops

Latin Times: Trump Administration Pushes to Use Spanish Language as Grounds for Immigration Stops in California by Pedro Camacho (“The administration argued that agents should be able to rely on these indicators when enforcing immigration laws.”) I had an associate 35 years ago, born in Puerto Rico, stopped in Little Rock for speaking Spanish. She’s now a Superior Court Judge in LA County.

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Latin Times: Trump Administration Pushes to Use Spanish Language as Grounds for Immigration Stops

MI: Two controlled buys where def left house to do it and returned was PC for house

The informant’s information here [to me] was conclusorily stated by the officer to be reliable [not discussed], except there were also two controlled buys from the defendant where he left his place and returned. [The latter is enough.] People v. Gault, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 6353 (Aug. 8, 2025).

“The officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Early. The officers had seen him ‘disappearing in the alleyways quickly’ with individuals the officers ‘presumed’ were ‘customers’ and observed him ‘tak[e] money from an individual in a car that pulled up to him.’ U.S. Ex. 1 at 3. There had also been a 911 call reporting that ‘dealer(s) [were] selling “white stuff”’ at the same location where a ‘red GMC Terrain’ was present. Id. at 2. In sum, probable cause was not based solely on unsupported assumptions by the officers as Mr. Early suggests. There were sufficient indicia of drug transactions to provide probable cause, and the officers were not required to confirm Mr. Early was in fact engaging in drug transactions before arresting him.” United States v. Early, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150931 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 2025).*

Plaintiff argues that the use of force in his case was with obvious clarity as far as the qualified immunity inquiry goes, but he didn’t raise that below. Herold v. Christensen, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19806 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Nexus, Probable cause | Comments Off on MI: Two controlled buys where def left house to do it and returned was PC for house

Four on IAC claims

Appellant doesn’t get a CoA on his claim he could have appealed the denial of the suppression motion despite the guilty plea. United States v. Penton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*

“Thus, Loston’s claim fails because by pleading guilty, Loston ‘waived not only the filing of any and all pre-trial motions … but also any ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to his counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress.’ See United States v. Moss, No. 12-CV-1525, 2014 WL 4354535, at 8 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2014).” United States v. Loston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153751 (W.D. La. Aug. 7, 2025).

Petitioner can’t establish cause for procedural default in not appealing his post-conviction Fourth Amendment claim. Johnson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20167 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025).*

“[A]ppellant’s affidavit was unsupported and self-serving and did not meet the level of cogency required to support his claim for post-conviction relief. The claims contained in the affidavit are completely contradicted by the evidence in the record and introduced at trial and are unsupported by other evidence.” State v. Shamblin, 2025-Ohio-2760 (4th Dist. July 29, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on Four on IAC claims

SCOTUSBlog: Trump administration urges Supreme Court to block district court ruling preventing immigration stops

Amy Howe: Trump administration urges Supreme Court to block district court ruling preventing immigration stops (SCOTUSBlog Aug. 7), Noem v. Perdomo, 25A169. The stay application is here. The response is due August 12th, 5 pm.

Note: This is an application for stay, not a petition for cert, but the shadow docket carries as much weight these days. That thing I said about the shadow docket three weeks ago? I was wrong.

Posted in Immigration arrests, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUSBlog: Trump administration urges Supreme Court to block district court ruling preventing immigration stops

CA11: SW for 15 years worth of records was still particular

The warrant for records was particular, albeit for 15 years worth of bank records, but it matched the time period under investigation, 1/1/05-11/11/19. And the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gyetvay, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20080 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop here based on recorded phone calls and collective knowledge of officers. United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153244 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025).*

Defendant was ultimately indicted for passport and identity fraud. The search warrant for her bags and laptop stored with someone else was with probable cause. It was reasonable to believe storage was to hide them from law enforcement, too. United States v. Orovio-Hernandez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151182 (D. Mass. Aug. 6, 2025).*

There is no validly pled Fourth Amendment interest in dried blood spots of newborn infants. Lovaglio v. Baston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153686 (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA11: SW for 15 years worth of records was still particular

OH2: State didn’t support basis for stop; remanded

Poorly developed record by the state results in remand. The state didn’t support its basis for the stop. State v. Scerba, 2025-Ohio-2791 (2d Dist. Aug. 8, 2025). Remember, in warrantless searches, the prosecution carries the burden of proof:

Continue reading
Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on OH2: State didn’t support basis for stop; remanded

TX7: Odor of MJ is PC; that’s TX precedent, and out of state cases don’t carry any weight

The odor of cannabis is still probable cause in Texas. “Emerging case law” in other states doesn’t matter because of Texas precedent. Parras v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5954 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Aug. 8, 2025).

Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of the car of a codefendant he was not connected to. United States v. Allen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151770 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2025);* United States v. Thin Elk, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19902 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*

Trial court doesn’t buy that the little baggie of meth was in plain view during this otherwise valid traffic stop. Motion to suppress granted. Guam v. Mesa, 2025 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 154 (July 28, 2025).*

These digital data warrants were limited and not overbroad, and didn’t sweep up information that the police didn’t need. State v. Dimolfetto, 342 Or. App. 456 (Aug. 6, 2025).*

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on TX7: Odor of MJ is PC; that’s TX precedent, and out of state cases don’t carry any weight

CNS: Office manager of Kansas newspaper raided by police settles lawsuit with town

CNS: Office manager of Kansas newspaper raided by police settles lawsuit with town by Hilled Aron (“The office manager of the Marion County Record, a Kansas weekly newspaper whose offices were raided by police, has settled her lawsuit with the city. The office manager’s attorney, Eric Weslander of Stevens & Brand in Lawrence, Kansas, said in an email that he couldn’t provide any details of the settlement, but that ‘the matter was resolved in a mutually agreeable manner.’ Police and county sheriff’s deputies raided the offices of the Marion County Record in August 2023, as well as the homes of its publisher, Eric Meyer, and a local city councilwoman. The searches sparked widespread outrage at what many said was a gross violation of the First Amendment, and briefly thrust the tiny town of Marion — population 1,943 — into the national spotlight. The news was even discussed during a White House press briefing.”).

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on CNS: Office manager of Kansas newspaper raided by police settles lawsuit with town

CA7: Omission of snitch’s criminal history wasn’t material compared to the detail

Omission of the CI’s criminal history and that he was already in trouble with the law wasn’t material here for Franks purposes. The detail overcame it. United States v. Hecke, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19836 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA7: Omission of snitch’s criminal history wasn’t material compared to the detail

NC: Nine-day delay between shooting and SW for gun wasn’t stale

A nine-day delay between a shooting and the search warrant for defendant’s place to look for the weapon wasn’t stale. The standard for timeliness is simply common sense. State v. Stevens, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 489 (Aug. 6, 2025).*

A strategic decision to forego a motion to suppress until it wasn’t timely anymore and then deciding to file it wasn’t good cause. It’s not like new facts came to light, which has been. United States v. Weston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149843 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2025).*

Officers got information from a jail inmate that one “TJ” was involved in a string of car burglaries around Pensacola. The informant said he bought the gun he had from TJ and it was stolen. They knew TJ was staying at an extended stay hotel and went there to do a knock-and-talk. In the meanwhile, another officer was drafting a search warrant application for the room. When they arrived, “[s]erendipitously (at least for Investigator Kelley), a rideshare was dropping off a man matching ‘TJ’s’ description and a female passenger in front of the Red Roof Inn’s porte cochere.” They called out to him, and he ran, likely clutching a gun to his side. He was captured. A protective sweep was done of the room, and there were plenty of drugs. Motion to suppress denied. United States v. Fasold, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151780 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Staleness | Comments Off on NC: Nine-day delay between shooting and SW for gun wasn’t stale