Officers at defendant’s house to execute an arrest warrant had exigent circumstances when they found a probable working methamphetamine lab. State v. Maust, 2016-Ohio-3171, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 2101 (8th Dist. May 26, 2016).
Defendant’s stop was justified by his not wearing a seatbelt and having too dark a window tint, so there was an objective basis for the stop and pretext fails. United States v. Thomas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70622 (W.D.Tenn. May 12, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70379 (W.D. Tenn. May 31, 2016).*
Defendant was on state probation, and his POs conducted a state legal suspicionless probation search. United States v. Williams, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9776 (11th Cir. May 31, 2016).*
Defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his CSLI in this district. Here it was sought by an order with a sufficient showing under § 2703, and the good faith exception applies. United States v. Alvarez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72803 (N.D.Cal. June 3, 2016).
“Here, the search warrant was undoubtedly supported by probable cause” for dealing drugs on a tribal casino property. “Additionally, although the Court need not reach the issue, the Court notes that Kouayara’s mere presence in the cabin where the drugs were found was likely sufficient to create probable cause. Where officers discover facts giving rise to probable cause that drug dealing is occurring in a small space, and only a small number of people are located in that space, then officers have probable cause to suspect that those individuals are engaged in illegal drug activities because drug dealing is ‘an enterprise to which a dealer would be unlikely to admit an innocent person with the potential to furnish evidence against him.’ Pringle, 540 U.S. at 373.” United States v. Kouayara, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71417 (D.Minn. May 31, 2016).*
Posted inCell site location information|Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: REP in CSLI, but GFE applies where court order sought on PC
The affidavit for search warrant was “somewhat conclusory,” but it incorporated defendant’s indictment which had specific allegations of overt acts. Taking the two together showed probable cause. United States v. Alvarez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72791 (N.D.Cal. June 3, 2016): Continue reading →
Posted inProbable cause|Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Affidavit for SW was “somewhat conclusory,” but it incorporated defendant’s indictment which had specific allegations of overt acts
“Triplett was an offender residing in the Mesa County residential community corrections facility.” He was taking a shower, and an officer of the facility was walking around for a cleanliness inspection. He touched defendant’s sock and felt a vial that turned out to contain drugs. This was a legal correctional search. “The community corrections facility where Triplett lived was referred to as a ‘detention facility.’ As an offender in a residential program, Triplett could request passes to leave the facility for work and other authorized activities, but if he left without a pass or failed to return before the pass expired, he was subject to escape charges; Triplett could not lawfully leave the facility whenever he chose. On the day of the search and interrogations, Triplett did not have a pass and was not free to lawfully leave the facility.” People v. Triplett, 2016 COA 87, 2016 Colo. App. LEXIS 771 (June 2, 2016).
Posted inReasonable expectation of privacy|Comments Off on CO: Residents of a “residential community corrections facility” are in DOC custody and subject to prison searches
The defendant’s house was entered at 6 am with an arrest warrant, and the officers knocked and entered when there was no prompt answer. The court credits the testimony of the occupants and the time involved and not the officer because it was a more significant event to them, and the officers had executed hundreds of warrants. The court finds a violation of the knock-and-announce rule and orders suppression of evidence seen on the entry conscious of Hudson and the preference not to suppress violations of the knock-and-announce rule. United States v. Vasquez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71856 (D.Conn. June 2, 2016). This is a significant case because seldom can a court get around Hudson: Continue reading →
Posted inKnock and announce|Comments Off on D.Conn.: Violation of knock-and-announce on a 6 am arrest warrant execution leads to suppression despite Hudson
The officers’ testimony is credited, and the defense cross didn’t make it better. “The inconsistencies, which in the Court’s view, were de minimis, were sought to be established by photographs of isolated portions of the living room and of Smith’s bedroom which were of questionable relevance. Frequently overlooked in a critical evaluation of such cross examination as they purport to undermine the credibility of a witness, is that the minutiae they inquire about occurred, as they did in this case, almost two years ago and inconsistencies are inevitable. Some might regard a precise minute by minute, inch by inch recall after such a time lapse with suspicion.” United States v. Smith, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72750 (E.D.N.Y. June 3, 2016).*
A traffic offense justified defendant’s stop, and the officer smelled marijuana as he approached it. The officer “carefully looked” through defendant’s wallet and found gift cards and credit cards in the name of others. He was not required to accept defendant’s explanations at face value given that defendant lied to him twice already. There was probable cause for arrest for identity theft. United States v. Cassiberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70349 (N.D.Ind. May 31, 2016).*
Posted inBurden of proof, Probable cause|Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Officer’s inability to remember minutia of search two years ago doesn’t make him unbelievable; opposite would more likely be true
The video shows consent: “The recording clearly demonstrates that during the traffic stop, while both were standing by the front passenger door to the vehicle, the officer asked Jackson if he had a ‘problem with me searching your vehicle?’ to which Jackson immediately replied, ‘None’ and Jackson then opened the vehicle’s door.” United States v. Jackson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72025 (E.D.La. June 2, 2016)*
The district court’s decision crediting defendant’s grandparents’ statements to the police at the time they entered the house over the suppression testimony has support in the record and is affirmed. They had full access to the room he claimed was his, so they had apparent authority to consent. United States v. Casey, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10109 (1st Cir. June 3, 2016).*
Defendant was not “seized” just because a police officer got out of a car and walked up to him and his cohorts. The fact nobody moved isn’t a seizure. Then, a plain view of drugs and a gun occurred, and that was justification for a seizure. United States v. Ragin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71440 (S.D.Fla. May 2, 2016).*
The court concludes that defendant’s consent was voluntary and rejects his arguments that it was coercive that his family was required to leave pending arrival of a search warrant. The court goes through various facts to find that just not believable that they were being forced out into the cold without shelter. The family’s needs were otherwise accommodated, including moving from a cold room in the house to getting a baby bottle ready for an infant. United States v. Jones, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71181 (W.D.Pa. June 1, 2016).*
Posted inConsent, Seizure|Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: One isn’t “seized” just because a law enforcement officer walked up to him
Just because PRPD had two addresses for defendant as places he’d lived before didn’t give reason to believe he was there at the time they entered with an arrest warrant. That it “could be” a place he’d be found doesn’t mean that he “would be” found there. United States v. Santiago-Rodriguez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71584 (D.P.R. June 1, 2016): Continue reading →
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on D.P.R.: Under Payton, there’s a difference between where an arrestee “could be found” and “would be found”
Suspending a DL for refusal of a blood test doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Rankin v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5785 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg June 2, 2016)*: Continue reading →
Posted inDrug or alcohol testing|Comments Off on TX13: Suspending a DL for refusal of a blood test doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment
WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.
Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NYTimes: Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say
Defendant lived in a condominium, and the management company gave the police access to the common areas for a dog sniff outside his unit’s door. The police had reasonable suspicion for the sniff. The court concludes that the area outside his condo door was not curtilage, recognizing a conflict with other jurisdictions. [The court’s error, in my estimation, is relying more on Dunn and subordinating Jardines. Hopefully, the Minnesota Supreme Court will take this up. The court rejects a different rule under the state constitution.] State v. Luhm, 2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 41 (May 31, 2016): Continue reading →
Posted inCurtilage|Comments Off on MN: Outside condo door not curtilage for dog sniff, recognizing conflict
Defendant’s wandering all over the road and even off the pavement was reasonable suspicion for a stop. The fact the dashcam only caught the second occurrence was of no avail to the defendant. State v. Moore, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 392 (May 24, 2016).*
Based on information already developed and from a tribal casino security that three men in three rooms were likely dealing drugs, officers looked at the casino videos and saw likely hand-to-hand drug transactions and identified the men. That was probable cause for search warrants. United States v. Kouayara, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178247 (D.Minn. Dec. 4, 2015).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on TN: Fact dashcam didn’t catch all of def’s bad driving didn’t help case
“First, the state argues that Douglas Christian Wasbotten had no standing to challenge a search of a rented vehicle when he was not an authorized driver under the rental agreement. Second, the state argues that the rental truck was properly impounded under A.R.S. § 28-3511, and the search was a valid inventory search. We hold that a driver of a rental vehicle, driving with the renter’s permission but not authorized by the rental agreement, is not per se without standing to challenge a search of the vehicle. But we also hold that A.R.S. § 28-3511, which requires impoundment of a vehicle driven by a person with a suspended or revoked license, does not require that the person be driving at the moment the vehicle is stopped. Shortly before the rental truck in this case was stopped, a renter with an invalid license was observed driving it. The impound and inventory search here were therefore lawful. We reverse the suppression order.” State v. Wasbotten, 2016 Ariz. App. LEXIS 105 (May 31, 2016).
Posted inStanding|Comments Off on AZ: Driver of a rental vehicle but not on the rental agreement but driving with permission of renter can still have standing
On the totality and by common sense, the record and the affidavit for the search warrant show that a critical date in the search warrant application had a typographical error as to the year (March 2013 v. March 2014), and the probable cause was not stale. Commonwealth v. Leed, 2016 PA Super 114, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 298 (June 1, 2016).
The two search warrants in this case lacked probable cause to search computers for child pornography. “Because the parties have not fully analyzed Leon or the flagrancy-deterrence calculus in these unique circumstances, further briefing is required. To inform that briefing, the Court sets forth its reasoning as to the validity (or invalidity) of the seizure and searches below.” United States v. Luke, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70544 (E.D.Ky. May 31, 2016).*
During a traffic stop, defendant lifted himself up consistent with hiding something, and that justified an order to get out of the car. When only a small quantity of marijuana was found, the exigency dissipated, and a search of the back armrest was not justified because defendant made no movement in that direction. Commonwealth v. Meneide, 2016 Mass. App. LEXIS 60 (June 1, 2016).
A petition for a writ of mandamus to inspect a chair in the blood draw room a year after the draw wasn’t shown to be material to the defense of contamination of the original blood draw. In re Hawk, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5760 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 31, 2016).*
Posted inProtective sweep, Scope of search|Comments Off on MA: Def’s furtive movement was hiding a small quantity of MJ, and that didn’t justify search of the backseat area when he was out of car
A search warrant for child pornography for “‘computers’ and related material” permitted a search of a cell phone and an SD card found during the search. At the minimum, their search was in objective good faith. United States v. Tatro, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70583 (M.D.Fla. May 31, 2016): Continue reading →
Posted inCell phones, Computer and cloud searches|Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: A CP SW for “‘computers’ and related material” includes a cell phone and SD card
Defendant failed to show standing in his motion to suppress by merely challenging the search of “any Hotmail accounts under his direction, control, use or access” without showing his connection. United States v. Archie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70620 (N.D.Ga. April 18, 2016): Continue reading →
Posted inE-mail, Standing|Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Motion to suppress of “any Hotmail accounts under his direction, control, use or access” doesn’t show standing
"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.
