Defendant lacked standing to challenge the placing of the GPS tracking device on the package because she was neither the sender nor addressee of the package and demonstrated no reasonable expectation of privacy in the package. The police could validly search defendant’s purse because her arrest was lawful. State v. Evans, 2018-Ohio-744, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 785 (8th Dist. Mar. 1, 2018).
Psychotherapist’s alleged violation of confidentiality and his reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversations in ratting out defendant about his child pornography use was not state action. The report would not lead to suppression. Ravn v. State, 2018 Alas. App. LEXIS 45 (Mar. 5, 2018) (memorandum).
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on The Intercept: New Orleans Surveillance Program Gives Powerful Tools to a Police Department with a History of Racism and Abuse
In the wake of ongoing attention to police misconduct, a new economic study considers the cost of granting full immunity to officers for wrongful arrests and detention of innocent people, instead proposing a model of ‘qualified immunity.’
Posted inQualified immunity|Comments Off on The Crime Report: Does Police Immunity for Wrongful Arrests Really Deter Crime?
Defendant came to a Fairbanks house when a search warrant was being executed, and he was searched, too, under the auspices of the “search any persons” present reference in the warrant. Defendant’s search was unreasonable under the circumstances. Innocent persons were subject to search without reason. If the house were a crack house, virtually everybody coming would not be so innocent, but this was a single family residence that wasn’t a semi-public crack house. Such a warrant clause requires a reason to search anyone else coming there. Osborne v. State, 2018 Alas. App. LEXIS 42 (Mar. 5, 2018): Continue reading →
Posted inScope of search, Warrant execution|Comments Off on AK: SW clause to “search any persons” here didn’t enable search of every person who came to the premises during the search
Defendant was observed shoplifting and put the allegedly stolen item into her purse. Outside, a struggle ensued, and defendant handed her purse off to another. It was subject to search incident because it was evidence [and an instrumentality] of the crime. State v. Bradley, 2018 Minn. App. LEXIS 139 (Mar. 5, 2018).
The order for defendant’s CSLI was proper under existing Sixth Circuit authority, and the court is bound by it, and it doesn’t have to wait for Carpenter to be decided. United States v. Herron, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35002 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2018).*
Summary judgment was properly granted against plaintiff’s prison Fourth Amendment claim that his privacy rights were violated because a female guard happened to see him in the shower. He has a limited reasonable expectation of privacy in his bodily privacy but it doesn’t go that far. Sublett v. Brown, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5576 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2018).
Discovery to try to overcome a Playpen warrant is denied because defendant can’t prevail. United States v. Harney, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34081 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 1, 2018).*
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel failed to properly argue the suppression motion is denied: This was thoroughly explored at the suppression hearing, and the video evidence supported the probable cause finding. State v. Henry, 2018-Ohio-787, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 826 (7th Dist. Mar. 5, 2018).*
The affidavit for this child pornography search warrant was conclusory as to alleged sexual activity of minors and did not show probable cause. It was, however, not so devoid of a showing that it wasn’t reasonable to rely on it for the good faith exception. United States v. Fager, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34876 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2018): Continue reading →
Posted inGood faith exception|Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Affidavit for CP didn’t show PC, but GFE still applies
On remand from the state supreme court, the Davis good faith exception does not apply in Florida to cell phone searches occurring before because there was no settled law, following Carpenter v. State, 228 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 2017). Burton v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2993 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 2, 2018).*
Evidence of a prior search of defendant’s apartment where she wasn’t arrested was minimally harmful if at all because that showed defendant was not in possession. The state offered it to prove knowledge. Commonwealth v. Proia, 2018 Mass. App. LEXIS 26 (Mar. 2, 2018).*
Posted inCell phones, Good faith exception|Comments Off on FL5 following FL SCt: Davis GFE doesn’t apply to pre-Riley cell phone searches
An actual drug transaction doesn’t have to happen for officers to have probable cause defendant likely had drugs in his hotel room. The investigation here developed logical inferences that’s what defendant was doing, and there was a nexus between his drug activity and the hotel room. State v. Baker, 2018-Ohio-762, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 797 (4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2018): Continue reading →
Posted inProbable cause|Comments Off on OH4: PC shown by inference that def had drugs in hotel room; officers don’t have to see a drug transaction to have PC
The officer here had reasonable suspicion defendant was carrying drugs, and the fact that another officer arrived and they talked about defendant for one minute didn’t show that they weren’t diligently following up in their investigation. United States v. Green, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34640 (W.D. N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018).*
“[W]e hold that the breath test was a permissible search incident to arrest and thus, its results were admissible. Additionally, we hold the results were also admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we affirm Perkins’ conviction.” State v. Perkins, 2018 Kan. App. LEXIS 11 (Mar. 2, 2018).*
Posted inDrug or alcohol testing, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Officers’ one minute discussion about def deciding what to do wasn’t being undiligent in pursuing their investigation
Being arrested in an apartment that’s not yours doesn’t confer standing without some proof of a relationship to the property. The evidence at the suppression hearing did not address defendant’s status relative to the apartment; i.e., whether he was the primary tenant, a co-tenant, an overnight visitor, merely present with the tenant’s consent, or even an uninvited trespasser. Defendant did not meet his threshold burden of demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, for example, by demonstrating that he was an overnight guest at the apartment. Grant of suppression motion reversed. State v. Wright, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 154 (Mar. 2, 2018).
“All four factors support a finding that the affidavit was not stale. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the lack of direct evidence of continuous involvement with child pornography between October 2015 [when it was discovered] and September 2016 [when search warrant issued] did not make the information in the affidavit stale.” United States v. Williams, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34093 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2018).*
Posted inStaleness, Standing|Comments Off on GA: Def failed to show standing in apt he was arrested in in early morning hours
The officer in this case did not have to knock-and-announce to make a protective sweep after defendant was arrested. The officer testified that he did. Entering with gun drawn doesn’t make it a “forceful entry.” United States v. Israel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34542 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 2, 2018): Continue reading →
Posted inKnock and announce, Protective sweep|Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary
Defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana so the search of his wallet was justified as a search incident. As a parolee, his hotel room was his “residence” for purposes of a parole search. State v. Warren, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 358 (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb. 28, 2018).
Defendant filed a motion to suppress for outrageous governmental misconduct based on the fact the CI was allowed to do a drug deal and that the CI probably was doing drugs. He alleges no specific facts for any of this, and he doesn’t get an evidentiary hearing. At best he shows something that goes to the CI’s credibility of whether the CI should testify at trial. United States v. Thomas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33061 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2018).*
Defendant was walking down the street, and officers noticed he had a bullet magazine on his belt. They followed him to his residence, and he declined to talk to them and went inside. Their entry into his residence violated the Fourth Amendment because there were no exigent circumstances justifying the entry. State v. Thomas, 2018-Ohio-758, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 793 (10th Dist. Mar. 1, 2018).
Defendant is charged with providing material support to ISIL in the Pulse Nightclub shooting. Police came to talk to her, and she voluntarily came out of her house and voluntarily agreed to wait for the FBI while sitting in a patrol car. She wasn’t under arrest or seized. United States v. Salman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31681 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2018).*
You are giving away more data about your location than you probably realize through the apps in your smartphone-and that data is being sold, often without your knowledge.
Posted inCell site location information|Comments Off on WSJ: Your Location Data Is Being Sold-Often Without Your Knowledge
The Alabama state requirement that an application for a search warrant be recorded doesn’t apply to using the product of the search in federal court. United States v. Tensley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29979 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2018).
Defendant’s Franks claim fails on both prongs: he didn’t show reckless or knowing falsity and or materiality in the motion to suppress. Thus, he doesn’t even get a hearing. United States v. Hampton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30719 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018).*
Posted inF.R.Crim.P. 41, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: AL state requirement of recording SW application doesn’t apply to SW used in federal court
A protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside. United States v. Ratcliff, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5443 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018).
Officer “knocked” on defendant’s tent at a campsite to talk to him, no different than knocking at the door to a house. The officer didn’t enter the tent, and defendant came out to talk to him. There was no coercion, and it’s all on body camera. United States v. Nikulshin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33867 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018).*
Plaintiffs adequately allege a claim for unreasonable execution of a search warrant. The officers executed a search warrant at 4 am without knocking or announcing, and shot the lock off the door. Greer v. City of Highland Park, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5330 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018): Continue reading →
"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.
