Defendant might not have standing but there was probable cause, so standing doesn’t have to be decided. Probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was predicated on his social media postings of him holding firearms, and they were found on the phone. United States v. Brown, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111884 (N.D. Ind. July 19, 2017).
“It is undisputed that Powell threw the firearm out of the moving vehicle before he abandoned the car and ran into the woods. The law is clear that abandoned property is not subject to a Fourth Amendment challenge.” United States v. Webb, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112289 (M.D. Ala. June 28, 2017).*
Posted inAbandonment, Cell phones|Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: PC for def’s cell phone was shown by his social media postings
Months of historical CSLI, rather than just three day’s worth, was properly acquired by the government to show defendant’s connections to the property at issue. The third party doctrine provides defendant no relief [yet]. United States v. Serrano, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112399 (S.D. N.Y. July 18, 2017).
Defendant was a mere passenger, and he has no standing to challenge the search of the car, despite his claiming a possessory interest in the firearm found inside. United States v. Taylor, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111895 (E.D. Wis. July 19, 2017).*
Defendant’s 2255 Franks IAC claim fails for not showing what the false statements were and how probable cause was undermined. United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112806 (D. Md. July 20, 2017).
Defendant’s moving his hands around in a vehicle prior to getting out supported a frisk. United States v. Davis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112912 (S.D. W.Va. July 20, 2017).*
There were stationary bugs that recorded conversations, and the government has declined to use them at trial after much litigation. Still, there is “a heap of incriminating evidence” derived from all kinds of sources, and the court won’t suppress all that was legally obtained under its supervisory power. Defendants sought to suppress everything from that date on, but they can’t show a cause in fact that anything else derived from them. United States v. Giraudo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111757 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inIndependent source|Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Defs can’t show taint from alleged illegal bugs and all that was acquired afterward in this wide-ranging investigation
The time limit for the search to occur in the warrant is for the place to be searched. When computers are seized under the warrant to be searched elsewhere, they are not subject to that time limit. United States v. Boker, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111320 (W.D. N.C. July 18, 2017).
The district court concluded defendant wasn’t in custody in his own car for an interview with two postal inspectors that resulted in his arrest. Whether Miranda warnings were given before the recording started, a fact in dispute, isn’t even dispositive. United States v. Vanderbeck, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13168 (3d Cir. July 21, 2017).*
Defendant was in a “high crime” area around an apartment complex, and he was nervous when accosted by a law enforcement officer, something normal. This just wasn’t enough to be reasonable suspicion. United States v. Alvin, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12972 (3d Cir. July 19, 2017).
The court credits that consent was given by defendant because officers entered with a key and he voluntarily turned it over. United States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109928 (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2017).*
Time and proximity are important in the reasonable suspicion calculus. The closer in time with proximity to the scene of a crime, the more likely the suspect is involved in the suspected or already occurred criminal activity. Here, however, two alleged lookouts to two robberies was not enough. “Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the lookouts, which boiled down to two black men in a white car, at high noon on a weekday, in downtown D.C., were simply insufficient to generate any particularized suspicion that the appellants here were the suspects being sought in connection with the Prince and Whitaker robberies.” Armstrong v. United States, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 198 (July 20, 2017).
Defendant’s property was searched by two children and their mother, clearly private actors. United States v. Jordan, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13152 (4th Cir. July 21, 2017).*
Posted inPrivate search, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on DC: Time and proximity to a crime are important in RS, but here it was lacking
Defendant moves to suppress the search of his business because he claimed his consent was coerced. His specific claims of coercion are belied by the security video from the business. Denied. United States v. Hunt-Irving, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108253 (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2017).
Defendant can’t move to suppress his co-defendant’s stop when he wasn’t there. United States v. Garcia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188501 (D. Minn. May 9, 2016).*
The government showed probable cause for a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones. United States v. Cruz, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188511 (D. Minn. May 9, 2016).*
Posted inConsent|Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Security video of def’s business belies his claim of coerced consent for search
The specific triggering event for this anticipatory warrant was handing the package to defendant, but that did not happen. The police entered anyway and seized. The Sixth Circuit recognizes that the triggering event has to be considered in a common sense fashion. United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297, 310-11 (6th Cir. 2009). Those cases are distinguishable here because the factual differences between what happened and the triggering event were minor. Here they are not. Finally, the good faith exception did not apply on these facts. In addition, defendant undertook a burden to show that the FedEx employee searching his package was seeking to aid law enforcement, but he failed in that burden. United States v. Perkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109865 (E.D. Tenn. July 5, 2017), overruling in part 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110512 (E.D. Tenn. April 20, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inAnticipatory warrant|Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Triggering event for anticipatory warrant not met, and suppression granted
The stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion. All the officer had was nervousness (belied by the video), one passenger had no bag in the car, and a single key was in the ignition. United States v. Flores, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109910 (S.D. Tex. April 4, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: Single key in the ignition adds nothing to RS
Any exigency involving defendant in his house evaporated when he was arrested and handcuffed. The mere possibility others are present can be exigency, but it requires pointing to actual facts, not possibilities. The court credits defendant’s own testimony damaging to himself showed the lack of exigency. United States v. Sergent, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108044 (M.D. La. July 11, 2017).
The affidavit for the search warrant for this marijuana operation wasn’t stale. While marijuana is easily transferred, the ongoing nature of the operation made it more likely it was still there. United States v. Coach, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107758 (W.D. Tenn. July 12, 2017).*
Posted inEmergency / exigency, Staleness|Comments Off on M.D.La.: Any exigency ended with def’s arrest; no facts showed others present
Use of a drug dog in a hotel hallway that produced an alert on defendant’s room’s door was not unreasonble under Jardines. A hotel hallway, accessible to many people, cannot be compared to the curtilage of a home. United States v. Lewis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105628 (N.D. Ind. July 10, 2017): Continue reading →
Defendant’s laptop was in plain view when it was seized from his car when defendant was arrested because the police believed that stolen credit card information would be on it. United States v. Prado, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111954 (W.D. Ky. July 18, 2017).
Defendant’s stop was prolonged without reasonable suspicion and became unreasonable. United States v. Ramirez-Escalera, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189424 (S.D. Tex. April 3, 2015),* adopted, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189427 (S.D. Tex. April 27, 2015).*
The Facebook warrant was not overbroad, and it was consistent and less intrusive than a Facebook warrant previously approved by the Ninth Circuit in Flores. That which was nonresponsive to the warrant was previously ordered segregated and sealed, and the government agents accidentally disclosed part of it in the discovery disclosures. The court declines to order suppression of all for that mistake. In addition, taking more than 180 days for review violated the court’s order, but it did not prejudice any of the accused because it didn’t enhance the government’s review. United States v. Bundy, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188523 (D. Ore. Sept. 14, 2016): Continue reading →
Posted inOverseizure, Warrant execution|Comments Off on D.Ore.: Gov’t’s mishandling of overseizure in Facebook SW didn’t prejudice defs so no suppression
The officer had no reasonable suspicion to extend defendant’s traffic stop after stopping him for no headlights on and using a cell phone. Once defendant’s criminal record popped up, the inquiry got more intense and lengthy. Nothing about defendant’s behavior or words added a thing to the reasonable suspicion calculus. If anything, the longer the stop went, the more apparent there was no reasonable suspicion. United States v. Clark, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106153 (D. N.J. July 10, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.N.J.: Def’s criminal history alone wasn’t RS to extend the stop under Rodriguez
The city made the requisite showing for issuance of an administrative warrant for a housing inspection. The court declines to interpret the state constitution more broadly than the Fourth Amendment on this issue. The privacy interests of the tenants must also be respected, and they get a right to be heard. In re An Admin. Search Warrant v. Wiebesick, 2017 Minn. LEXIS 424 (July 19, 2017). Syllabus by the court: Continue reading →
Posted inAdministrative search|Comments Off on MN: Admin. SW may issue for rental property inspection under Camara if the rights of tenants are respected, so they get a right to be heard
Two cars in the driveway doesn’t translate into two people in the house. The protective sweep of defendant’s house was unreasonable because the officers identified no facts at all to indicate a reasonable belief someone else was there: no sounds of others, no safety concerns, not anything testified to. [Buie is based on reasonable suspicion of the possibility of others, and the two car rationale seems a post hoc rationalization.] State v. Byrd, 2017-Ohio-6903, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3001 (2d Dist. July 21, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inProtective sweep|Comments Off on OH2: No testimony supported RS for protective sweep; two cars in driveway alone wasn’t enough
A private school ejected plaintiff and he sued on several grounds. His Fourth Amendment claim (sounds problematic on its face) is rejected because the school is not a state actor despite receiving some federal funds. Nkwuo v. Angel, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12809 (9th Cir. July 17, 2017). (More to the point, this simply is not a Fourth Amendment issue.)
Defendant’s offense was in two counties, and he pled guilty. His plea waived venue, even if it was a valid issue, and he can’t show defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the forfeiture too. His central issue seems to be the seizure and forfeiture of $83,500, $22,000 of which was on him in the other county, which he’s trying to get back. State v. Stephens, 2017-Ohio-6911, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3017 (5th Dist. July 12, 2017).*
Defendant was stopped under a statute later declared unconstitutional. Distinguishing prior authorities applying state law, the court holds that the “void ab initio” doctrine does not apply here, and the arrest, valid at the time, did not require suppression of the evidence later. People v. Holmes, 2017 IL 120407, 2017 Ill. LEXIS 652 (July 20, 2017). This is kind of like Davis good faith exception, but not exactly: 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.
