Reviewing search warrant applications is a core function of a judicial officer, and that does not qualify as an improper ex parte communication requiring the trial judge to recuse. Writ of prohibition denied. Adelson v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 3620 (Fla. 1st DCA May 9, 2025).
When the driver could not be identified, asking for his SSN was reasonable. So was asking the passengers for their names. United States v. Morgan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88170 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 1, 2025).
The dashcam didn’t show the failure to signal, but the camera was on the passenger side of the patrol car, and it had a different view from the driver. The officer’s testimony is credited. United States v. Vann, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11318 (6th Cir. May 8, 2025).*
The record does not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against defense counsel on a suppression issue, and Stone bars any free standing Fourth Amendment claim on habeas. United States v. Grant, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89323 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 18, 2025).*
A caution about pleading in a § 1983 Fourth Amendment case: Plaintiff loses because of his skeletal claims in the complaint. “We express no opinion on whether the officers needed to handcuff Petersen, transport him in a police vehicle to a police station, and hand him over to an interview team to complete their stated mission of ascertaining Petersen’s identity, determining whether Petersen had a firearm, and investigating the situation without interference. See United States v. Bullock, 632 F.3d 1004, 1016-17 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘We have previously found that using handcuffs, placing suspects in police cars, drawing weapons, and other measures of force more traditionally associated with arrests may be proper during an investigatory detention, depending on the circumstances …. [But] in some situations, maintaining the status quo while obtaining more information … might be the most reasonable action to take.’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). We also express no opinion on whether, to get Erato’s name, check if he had a gun, and investigate the scene without his interference, the officers needed to handcuff him, take his belongings, transport him in a police vehicle to a police station, and interview him. And we express no opinion on whether Petersen or Erato’s detentions morphed into full-blown arrests. In the end, it does not matter whether the record supports these conclusions because the skeletal arguments on which Plaintiffs rely are insufficient to support their Fourth Amendment claims. United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991) (‘[P]erfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived ….’); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (‘A skeletal “argument,” really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim.’ (citation omitted)).” Moderson v. City of Neenah, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11281 (7th Cir. May 9, 2025).*
In a Medicaid fraud case, the state did not show probable cause to believe evidence would be found on the cell phone of the Medicaid provider. The search warrant was also not particular for the cell phone. The warrant authorized seizure of computer media in the dentists’ office. Lookhart v. State, 2025 Alas. App. LEXIS 46 (May 9, 2025):
Defendant consented to seizure of his cell phone after officers learned there might be child sexual abuse material on it. A search warrant later issued. All this was reasonable. The officer doesn’t have to have evidence that defendant might delete information from the phone before seeking to secure it. People v. Evans, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 3621 (May 8, 2025).
“[T]he district court correctly determined that Officer Zavaleta’s initial detention of Darling did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Zavaleta knew that Darling was in a small group and had reason to believe that another member of that group was armed and had been brandishing the firearm. This provided a reasonable objective basis for Zavaleta to briefly detain the group.” Darling v. Zavaleta, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11264 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025).*
Defendant is charged with vehicular manslaughter. A search warrant was issued for the interior of the vehicle: “The court’s common-sense review of the validity of the search warrant is limited to whether the issuing court reasonably determined that probable cause existed for its issuance. … The sworn affidavit in support of the warrant was signed by the lead detective on the case, a 17-year veteran of the NYPD assigned to the Collision Investigation Squad. The warrant is sufficiently narrow and particular in its scope, requesting the seizure and search only of the Defendant’s vehicle involved in the crash and the interior items which are relevant to the details of Defendant’s driving and his identity as the driver. The affiant’s basis of knowledge for the information in the affidavit was derived from his own observations, experience, and investigation as well as investigation by other police officers ….” People v. Hill, 2025 NY Slip Op 25109 (Queens Co. May 6, 2025).*
An anonymous tip “here predicted Dodd would engage in future criminal activity and the tipster explained how they knew this information. Bullard then investigated these claims and learned new, non-public information that corroborated many of the allegations.” This was “reasonable cause to search and arrest Dodd” for a probation violation. United States v. Dodd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89064 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2025).
Defendant’s Jan. 6th pardon doesn’t apply to is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) conviction for firearms found when his house was raided in February 2021. United States v. Costianes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89182 (D. Md. May 8, 2025).*
Defendants were convicted of a petty offense for attempting to video record in a federal courthouse. This defendant had his cell phone confiscated during the trial. “Staples also contends that confiscation of his phone during his trial violated his Fourth Amendment rights. As above, he makes no argument or showing that confiscation of his phone affected his ability to defend himself. Any Fourth Amendment violation is not an issue for appeal.” United States v. Staples, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88676 (D.N.H. May 9, 2025).*
Petitioner’s 2254 habeas fails on Stone grounds. He litigated it in state court and lost. Also, the fact he was acquitted of the traffic offense that started it all says nothing about probable cause for the stop. Brown v. New York, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88547 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2025).*
Traffic stops can be based on reasonable suspicion, not just probable cause. State v. Howard, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 3618 (Fla. 5th DCA May 9, 2025).
A light bar on a three wheel off road vehicle was reasonable suspicion for a stop. Roland v. La. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2025 La. LEXIS 712 (La. May 9, 2025).*
Ex parte applications for search warrant are explicitly recognized. Adelson v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 3620 (Fla. 1st DCA May 9, 2025).*
Walking away from a police encounter is permitted, but here the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the fact this was a notorious open air market and they’d taken drugs off of some of the participants before. On the totality there was reasonable suspicion. State v. K.B., 2025 La. LEXIS 708 (La. May 9, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks claim fails. The omitted allegedly exculpatory evidence either wasn’t material to the probable cause finding or wasn’t known by law enforcement at the time the warrant issued. In this circuit, the collective knowledge doctrine applies to warrantless searches, not warrants. Also, the Franks offer of proof is just conclusory. United States v. Combs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89165 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2025)*:
Posted inCollective knowledge, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge
Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing his desired defendant’s personal Franks issue when lack of probable cause was a better issue. He also wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that GPS tracking across state lines was unreasonable. Appellate counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing a particular search case that was clearly distinguishable. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89189 (W.D. Va. May 7, 2025). As to trial counsel:
A late disclosed bodycam video support a Franks challenge, and defendant gets to reopen his suppression hearing. United States v. Price, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88965 (E.D. Tenn. May 9, 2025).
A time gap in when a confederate checked into their hotel and the key card was issued doesn’t establish sufficient falsity for a Franks challenge here. United States v. Triplett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88926 (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2025).*
“So even if everything Combs challenged as a misstatement was taken out and everything Combs says was inappropriately omitted was added in, there was still enough for probable cause of the federal offenses identified in the affidavits.” And, even if the warrants were defective as to particularity, they still were executed in good faith. United States v. Combs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89165 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2025).*
Defendant returned through JFK after a family vacation in Egypt. His cell phone was searched without probable cause or a warrant, something required by a prior case, decided two years after his search. United States v. Sultanov, 742 F. Supp. 3d 258 (E.D.N.Y. 2024). The Second Circuit hasn’t ruled yet. The child pornography found is suppressed for lack of a warrant. United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89035 (E.D.N.Y. May 9, 2025).* [No Davis good faith?]
In this child pornography case, the warrant was narrowed by the attached affidavit. In addition, the generality of the warrant is determined by what the officers did, not what they thought. United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89056 (W.D. Pa. May 9, 2025):
Defendant’s showing deception on a sex offender polygraph test while on supervision was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. United States v. Dodd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89064 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2025):
“But reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.” State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 1640 (1st Dist. May 8, 2025).
The home owner consented to a complete search, and the defendant has no sufficient connection to the premises to have standing to contest it. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87779 (N.D. Ohio May 8, 2025).*
The protective sweep of the house after defendant’s arrest was reasonable because there were others potentially involved that were unaccounted for. United States v. August, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11154 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025).*
The second officer with the dog arrived and conducted the sniff, so there was no prolonging the detention. On reconsideration, defendant’s argument that the stop was prolonged on purpose is waived for failure to present it to the trial court. State v. Dean, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (Mar. 19, 2025).
Punching an arrestee in the head after he was subdued overcame qualified immunity. Jones v. Ceinski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11181 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025).*
“In this case, undisputed facts support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force to arrest the plaintiff, and that no reasonable factfinder could find for the plaintiff. … Both the severity of the crime at issue and the threat to the safety of others strongly support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force in arresting the plaintiff. During the incident, it is uncontested that the plaintiff was experiencing a psychotic episode and was under the influence of narcotics. Both the severity of the crime at issue and the threat to the safety of others strongly support the conclusion that the officers used reasonable force in arresting the plaintiff. During the incident, it is uncontested that the plaintiff was experiencing a psychotic episode and was under the influence of narcotics.” Sabino v. Port Auth. Police Dep’t, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87654 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025).*
The facts dispute in this case involving the shooting a man in a psychotic break deny summary judgment. Winkley v. Blackwell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11162 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025).*
LawFare: Tracing the Origins of a ‘New American Surveillance State’ by Sarah Lamdan (“A review of Byron Tau, ‘Means of Control: How the Hidden Alliance of Tech and Government Is Creating a New American Surveillance State’ (Crown, 2024)”)
Fraudulently renting a hotel room means no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. And, it didn’t matter that the police didn’t learn that until later. Bluntson v. State, 2025 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 297 (May 7, 2025).
At the oral argument on the objections to the R&R [which almost never happens] defendant challenged the lack of probable cause but without factual or legal argument, and conceded the good faith exception should apply. [The latter was enough. The rest of this opinion didn’t matter.] United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85359 (W.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).
A gun in a drug house searched with a warrant was seized in plain view. Defendant was associated with the premises and was a felon. United States v. Fistzgiles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85631 (D. Del. May 5, 2025).*
If there was probable cause to arrest for any offense, the arrest is valid even if the probable cause for the offense stated was lacking. Crump v. Lun, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85015 (D. Kan. May 5, 2025).*
I have posted a revised draft of my forthcoming article, The Two Tests of Search Law: What is the Jones Test, and What Does That Say About Katz?, which will be published in the Washington University Law Review. You can download it here, and the abstract is below.
HPCWire: Do You Own Your Cloud Data? Third-Party Doctrine Says No by Alex Woodie (“Your data is yours, right? It seems like a simple question, but thanks to a little-known loophole in federal law, US regulators can access your private data without a warrant as long as it’s being stored by a third party. The so-called ‘third-party doctrine’ could be reconsidered in a case currently before the Supreme Court.”)
Cato: This SCOTUS Case Could Give the IRS Access to Your Private Data — Cato Legal Experts (“When nearly every aspect of our lives is stored and synced through digital intermediaries, the ‘third-party doctrine’ has become a gaping loophole for mass surveillance”)
Posted inThird Party Doctrine|Comments Off on HPCWire: Do You Own Your Cloud Data? Third-Party Doctrine Says No
Defendant was suspected of stealing trailers, and they were seen at his house. This did not justify a search warrant for documents in his house. In addition, the good faith exception did not apply. Thomas v. State, 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 145 (May 5, 2025):
Defendant’s nodding yes to a request to search was consent to search the car. The officers might have believed he didn’t have standing since he was a mere passenger at the time. He didn’t mention facts supporting standing until at the police barracks, so standing doesn’t matter. United States v. Terry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10832 (3d Cir. May 6, 2025).*
The ATF affiant wasn’t required to support his employment history when he states it. He’s under oath. There is no right of confrontation in an affidavit for search warrant. Defendant’s Franks claim fails for a complete lack of an offer of proof. United States v. Fortson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85880 (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2025).*
Plaintiffs’ complaint includes a Fourth Amendment claim that fails for lack of short plain statement required by FRCP 8 of the claim. Palisades Ests. Eom, LLC v. Cty. of Rockland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85721 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution case was dismissed below. The Heck bar wasn’t discussed, and it’s remanded for further consideration of that. Clayton v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863 (4th Cir. May 6, 2025).*
"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.
