The affidavit for search warrant shows sufficient references to recent time to show it was not stale. “Put plainly, the Sixth Circuit does not require a search warrant affidavit to include the temporal specificity which Hardaway suggests is necessary. Rather, an affiant need only include ‘some temporal reference,’ to when a controlled buy occurred for it to be properly considered in the probable cause determination. United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2006).” United States v. Hardaway, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108568 (E.D. Ky. June 9, 2025).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle’s VIN number such that it can’t be used to verify insurance. Bradley v. Ill. Sec’y of State, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108842 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2025).
Uncertainty about what the trial court held in not believing the officers in granting a motion to suppress results in remand for further findings. State v. Mickel, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 125 (June 10, 2025).*
Presented as an effort to suppress, defendant can’t get discovery of how Snap operates in an effort to show that it is not a private actor in providing a CSAM tip to law enforcement. United States v. Ambrose, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108772 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2025).
The use of Automatic License Plate Readers to track movements of defendant’s car can’t (yet) equate with Carpenter’s CSLI. Maybe someday, but not here. There are many differences on this record. United States v. Sturdivant, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109054 (N.D. Ohio June 9, 2025):
Defendant’s search incident of his car for proof of insurance was without probable cause. As for reasonable suspicion, his change in demeanor once he found out a search of the car was going to occur didn’t contribute to reasonable suspicion. Also, “while the Court will consider Defendant’s unremarkably friendly demeanor in its analysis of the totality of the circumstances, it limits the weight afforded to this factor and finds that it carries only minimal, if any, significance.” On the totality of the other information, the unspecific information just didn’t add up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Baray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109108 (D. Colo. June 9, 2025)*:
Defendant’s argument about admission of a search warrant affidavit at trial was deemed abandoned even for plain error review. Coston v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 123 (June 10, 2025).* (Caution readers: I had this issue just this year: The prosecution offered a search warrant affidavit into evidence to rebut something, and it was coming in over my objection that it was full of hearsay and violated confrontation. I ended up abandoning that inquiry rather than go down that road. That’s going to be an issue on appeal.)
“Hobson did not make a preliminary showing that Garcia’s affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods. And even if he did, the affidavit would support probable cause with the challenged portions excised. Therefore, he is not entitled to a Franks hearing.” United States v. Hobson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106846 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025).*
Defendant’s probation home visit resulted in a plain view of a gun and plain smell of marijuana. That was reasonable suspicion for a full search. United States v. Akins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106616 (N.D. Ga. June 5, 2025).*
Search warrant for a car authorized search of a purse found inside. United States v. Cummings, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13777 (9th Cir. June 5, 2025).*
Posted inAdministrative search, Immigration arrests|Comments Off on Arnold & Porter: People Are Not Documents: Texas Court Rules That Administrative Inspection Warrants Cannot Be Used for Immigration Raids of Businesses
The state didn’t sufficiently develop search incident as an alternative theory to sustain the search merely by mentioning it. State v. Ribota, 341 Or. App. 32 (June 4, 2025).
There is a fact question for trial for excessive force, and the right was clearly established that, if plaintiff was no longer a threat, the use of force was unreasonable. Keith v. Griffiths, No. 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14025 (6th Cir. June 6, 2025).*
Appellate counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising the claim that the search warrants must have been forged because more than one was rejected below and is frivolous. United States v. Lowe, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106950 (D. Kan. June 5, 2025).*
Defendant’s unwarned statements established probable cause for these warrants. United States v. Akins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106616 (N.D. Ga. June 5, 2025).*
Posted inInformant hearsay|Comments Off on Reason: Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information
Marshall Project: How AI-Powered Police Forces Watch Your Every Move by Jamiles Lartley (“Artificial intelligence is changing how police investigate crimes — and monitor citizens — as regulators struggle to keep pace.”)
Aguilar-Spinelli is still followed in New Mexico, and its strictures were met here. Motion to suppress properly denied, and court of appeals reversed. State v. Perea, 2025 N.M. LEXIS 91 (June 5, 2025):
Defendant’s backpack was searched in 2017, but he wasn’t indicted until 2020, and his case lingered. The officer’s testimony about the search is hazy and inconclusive enough that the court finds cause to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. The defense was compromised. United States v. Alabi, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107502 (D. Md. June 6, 2025).
Defendant’s arrest without a warrant for a felony was with probable cause and was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Singleton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107838 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2025).*
The use of deadly force against an active shooter here was reasonable, so the officer gets qualified immunity. Est. of Parker v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13972 (5th Cir. June 6, 2025).*
The officer needed no search warrant to look in plaintiff’s car window on a parking lot. Crosson v. N. Light Sebasticook Valley Hosp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107598 (D. Me. June 6, 2025).*
On qualified immunity, it’s been settled for a decade that shooting and killing a man with a knife when he’s already down for the first four shots would be excessive force under Zion v. County of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2017). The dissent said Zion should be overruled. Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, 21-55994 (9th Cir. June 2, 2025) (en banc).*
The district court didn’t decide qualified immunity here, but it was fully briefed and plaintiff waived response to the defense motion for summary judgment. The officers get qualified immunity here. Paz v. Hayden, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13960 (5th Cir. June 6, 2025).*
Defendant’s place was searched based on a search warrant related to his activities at the Capitol on January 6th. He was found to be a felon in possession of a firearm. The pardon didn’t cover that. United States v. Meteer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107944 (E.D. Tenn. June 6, 2025),* following United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66399 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025), appeal pending, relief pending appeal denied 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).
Posted inExcessive force, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on CA9 en banc: It’s settled that shooting again a man with a knife who’s already down is excessive
This court is bound by circuit authority from 2009 and 2022 en banc that pole camera surveillance is valid, even if this judge was sympathetic to the argument and the state court might rule differently. United States v. Crisostomo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107782 (D. Mass. June 6, 2025):
Paying daily “rent” in drugs is a business transaction without standing. “Although Jackson was an overnight guest insofar as he slept on the couch in the living room, he told law enforcement officers in his interview that he paid McCallister in pills for the ability to stay there and otherwise supplied her with drugs. The transactional nature of the relationship indicates that Jackson may have been a business visitor; it is not clear that he and McCallister enjoyed the level of mutual trust inherent in a social relationship that would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy within her home.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107978 (S.D. W. Va. June 6, 2025).
A statement in a search warrant affidavit that a box of ammunition could be seen inside a store plastic bag wasn’t shown to be false. “Clear enough” to see isn’t false. United States v. Hobson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106846 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025).*
“In this case, officers received multiple 911 calls that there was an active shooter. The responding officers had objectively reasonable and particularized suspicion that the plaintiff committed or was committing a crime; they were allowed to detain him until the officers were able to determine if he had committed a crime. Plaintiff was detained only as long as it took the officers to determine he had not committed a crime. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation.” Tholley v. AAA Pediatrics, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104573 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2025).*
No warrant was required for the CI to record defendant, following White (1971). United States v. Sudbury, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13921 (9th Cir. June 6, 2025).
The state can’t be compelled to seek to unseal the CI’s testimony for the search warrant here when that avenue was equally available to the defense. People v. Richards, 2025 NY Slip Op 03453 (4th Dept. June 6, 2025).*
“Here, the circumstances easily provided grounds for a Terry stop. At the suppression hearing, Tidwell and Miller each testified to being familiar with the smell of marijuana through his training. Each detective further testified that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from Santiago’s car when it entered the parking lot and that the smell intensified when Santiago opened his car door. The bodycam footage shows that Tidwell told Santiago that the car ‘reek[ed] of weed.’” United States v. Santiago, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13956 (6th Cir. June 6, 2025).*
Obtaining insurance records by subpoena for civil discovery was not unreasonable. The statute says subpoena or search warrant. Da Veiga v. Currie, 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14828 (L.A. Co. May 8, 2025).*
Objection to the USMJ’s probable cause finding but not application of the good faith exception is waiver on the latter. United States v. Baldwin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106406 (D. Alaska June 4, 2025).
The legality of the protective sweep was irrelevant to the issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106330 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2025).*
Defendant service member’s wife searched his cell phone and found inappropriate pictures of her daughter. She turned the phone over, and this was a private search. The duration of the seizure issue wasn’t raised below so it’s waived. United States v. Harborth, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 436 (C.A.A.F. June 3, 2025).*
Petitioner shows justification for return of property that the government gave a contradictory response that it didn’t have it but apparently once did. Amadi v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107237 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2025).*
Defendant moves to suppress without saying what it is that should be suppressed. [So why not just find it moot?] Defendant raises a Franks challenge and a lack of probable cause. He doesn’t prevail on either. United States v. Alhemoud, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108115 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2025):
The Appeal: Strip Searches Have a Racist, Dehumanizing Legacy by Christopher Blackwell & Sarah Sax (“Strip searches—the procedure that triggered this deadly encounter—represent a form of state-sanctioned violence with deep historical roots in American racial oppression. The practice of forcing people to disrobe and submit to bodily inspection directly echoes the dehumanizing treatment of enslaved people, who were regularly stripped naked and paraded in front of potential buyers. This historical connection is particularly salient given the disproportionate incarceration rates of Black Americans.”)
Posted inStrip search|Comments Off on The Appeal: Strip Searches Have a Racist, Dehumanizing Legacy
Police had an otherwise valid warrant to install a tracking device on defendant’s vehicle but in a public place. Instead, they entered the curtilage to install it there. This warrant execution violated the Fourth Amendment and state constitution. The tracking warrant is suppressed; there is no good faith exception in New Jersey. “The top of the driveway where the subject vehicle was parked was part of the curtilage of defendant’s home and was thus constitutionally protected—a conclusion the State does not dispute.” “We emphasize that it does not matter that the State Police did not appreciate the constitutional significance of entering onto defendant’s residential property.” Also, there is no good faith exception in New Jersey. State v. Johnson, 2025 N.J. Super. LEXIS 40 (June 3, 2025).
2255 petitioner’s unfiled Fourth Amendment claim makes no sense. Earquhart v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2025).* (Not exactly, but close enough.)
2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by Stone so no CoA. Bradley v. Corrigan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13511 (6th Cir. June 2, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a gun defendant abandoned. United States v. Emerson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104983 (W.D. Okla. June 3, 2025).*
EFF: Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant by Matthew Guariglia (“New reporting has revealed that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is attempting to create the Intelligence Community’s Data Consortium–a centralized online marketplace where law enforcement and spy agencies can peruse and buy very personal digital data about you collected by data brokers. Not only is this a massive escalation of the deeply unjust data broker loophole: it’s also another repulsive signal that your privacy means nothing to the intelligence community.”)
Posted inDigital privacy|Comments Off on EFF: Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant
"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.
