The dog arrived within six minutes and conducted a free air sniff around the vehicle, all within the time of the original stop so delay [Rodriguez] is not an issue. United States v. McNabb, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127020 (D.Idaho September 21, 2015).
“[O]fficers responded to reports of an attempted armed robbery in which a shot had been fired. Three people were reportedly fleeing in a red Suzuki, and at least two of them were armed. But none of the occupants had a gun on his person when they were removed from the vehicle. An objectively reasonable officer would believe that at least one of the weapons used in the attempted robbery was still inside the car. Thus, there was probable cause to search the car.” United States v. Murphy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128524 (D.Kan. September 24, 2015)
The application for the search warrant listed the statutes of offenses under investigation, but the search warrant did not. The warrant, however, incorporated the application, so the officers knew what they were searching for. “The search warrant here does not authorize the ‘general rummaging’ the court criticized in Cassady. Instead, the attachments to the search warrant specify the electronic devices to be searched, along with their serial numbers if available. The search warrant and its attachments also specify the types of evidence to be seized, specifically, evidence related to child pornography and kidnapping. In twelve of the fifteen paragraphs listed in Attachment B ‘List of Items to Be Seized’ there is a specific reference to either child pornography or to kidnapping.” United States v. Vafeades, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129437 (D.Utah September 25, 2015).
A state search warrant application wasn’t filed until after hours, and that was still valid because many search warrants are sought after hours. It thus did not violate due process. [Besides, where’s the prejudice in an after hours filing? What about Virginia v. Moore that state law violations are irrelevant under the Fourth Amendment?] United States v. Gater, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128207 (E.D. Mo. September 10, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127127 (E.D. Mo., September 23, 2015).
Posted inWarrant requirement|Comments Off on D.Utah: Incorporation of affidavit into warrant made it complete
A college student has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her dorm room from an entry by the police. The fact the resident assistant could look in there wasn’t determinative. State v. Rodriguez, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9972 (Tex. App. – Eastland September 24, 2015): Continue reading →
Leaving a cell phone at the scene of a crime and making no effort to reclaim it is an abandonment. Even having a passcode on the phone doesn’t overcome abandonment, following People v. Daggs, 133 Cal. App. 4th 361, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649 (1st Dist. 2005). State v. Brown, 2015 S.C. App. LEXIS 217 (September 23, 2015).
The search of the vehicle here was reasonable as inventory, automobile exception, or search incident. United States v. Rodriguez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126635 (S.D.Fla. September 16, 2015).*
Parole officers conducting a parole search at a parolee’s house encountered defendant who was visiting there. His nervous demeanor and hands in pockets and bulge in his clothing gave them reasonable suspicion for a patdown. Commonwealth v. Mathis, 2015 PA Super 201, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 547 (September 22, 2015).*
Payton’s “reason to believe” the person named in the arrest warrant is home is less than probable cause. This is apparently the majority rule. Barrett v. Commonwealth, 2015 Ky. LEXIS 1859 (September 24, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on KY: Payton’s “reason to believe” the person named in the arrest warrant is home is less than probable cause
Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway of a U-Haul storage facility. Thus, a dog sniff there was probable cause for a search warrant for the storage unit. United States v. Flores, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126355 (N.D.Ill. September 22, 2015).
The CI here was sufficiently corroborated to show probable cause. United States v. Russell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126508 (D. Minn. August 7, 2015),* adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126280 (D.Minn. September 22, 2015).*
Police had information about drug sales by defendant and his girl friend who lived at his house. A trash pull revealed cocaine. United States v. Alexander, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126484 (M.D.N.C. September 22, 2015).*
The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to administrative license suspensions for driving under the influence. Bobeck v. Idaho Transp. Dep’t, 2015 Ida. App. LEXIS 86 (September 24, 2015).
Defendant was stopped for speeding, but he couldn’t answer basic question about much of anything, and reasonable suspicion thus developed for a detention for a dog sniff. State v. Gibson, 2015-Ohio-3812, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3707 (3d Dist. September 21, 2015).*
Defendant was stopped at a safety checkpoint for DLs and insurance papers, and he was found intoxicated. The checkpoint was properly set up and conducted, and the motion to suppress was properly denied. Moss v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 552 (September 23, 2015).*
Officers arrived at the scene of a shooting and immediately called for EMS, and called twice more before they finally arrived. Plaintiffs’ quarrel was that they weren’t more emphatic about the degree of injury. “A reasonable officer in Piotrowski’s or Zayto’s position—a position that was, indisputably, a chaotic one—would not have known that his general calls for medical assistance for gunshot victims violated the Constitution.” Linden v. Piotrowski, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17020 (6th Cir. September 24, 2015).*
Handcuffing of a shooting victim in response to a 911 call to clear the premises did not violate clearly established law. “Martin failed to demonstrate that Defendants violated clearly established law by restraining a noncompliant and apparently intoxicated individual for nine minutes in order to clear a scene where they reasonably believed that a shooting had recently occurred.” Martin v. County of Santa Fe, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16779 (10th Cir. September 22, 2015).*
This 911 call that defendant was likely with a gun was more like Florida v. J.L. than Naverette v. California, and it lacked indicia of reliability. While it’s a “close case,” the motion to suppress should be granted. “Nothing in the Navarette case suggests that the Court is turning away from its unanimous decision in J.L., entered just 15 years ago.” United States v. Hall, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128631 (N.D. Iowa September 10, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126453 (N.D. Iowa September 22, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inInformant hearsay|Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Anonymous 911 call wasn’t good enough under Florida v. J.L.
Defendant consented in writing to a search of his vehicle but it took 71 minutes before any drugs were found. The length of search alone does not make it unreasonable nor violate the terms of the consent. If he had objected to the length of the search, would it have made a difference? Maybe. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128216 (W.D.Pa. September 23, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inConsent, Reasonableness|Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: 71 minutes for consent search of car on PA Turnpike didn’t make it unreasonable per se
New Jersey retreats from its 2009 requirement of a telephonic search warrant if at all possible in automobile searches essentially as a failed experiment. Thus, the court goes back to probable cause and exigency and the automobile exception. State v. Witt, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 890 (September 24, 2015). From the court’s syllabus: Continue reading →
Posted inAutomobile exception|Comments Off on NJ goes back to automobile exception and retreats from its 2009 requirement of a telephonic search warrant if at all possible in automobile searches
“A District Court judge erred in denying the criminal defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence of controlled substances that a police officer discovered after having stopped the defendant’s motor vehicle following the detection of an odor of burnt marijuana coming from it while it was moving, where the stop was unreasonable under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, in that a stop under such circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause to believe, that the defendant was committing the civil offense of possessing a small quantity of marijuana; and in that such a stop based on reasonable suspicion of a possible civil marijuana infraction did not promote highway safety and ran contrary to the purposes of the statute decriminalizing the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.” Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 2015 Mass. LEXIS 727 (September 22, 2015).
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on MA: Because possession of MJ is a civil infraction, the smell of burnt MJ in a car isn’t probable cause to search the car where there was no showing of need to protect highway safety
A crate of marijuana was searched by “marshals of the Kingdom of Atooi,” a Polynesian kingdom within Hawai’i not otherwise described. Their search was not at insistence or with the acquiescence of the state or federal government, and it could be used in federal court. United States v. Toyofuku, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126053 (D.Haw. September 21, 2015), same result on reconsideration, United States v. Toyofuku, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167846 (D. Haw. Dec. 5, 2016).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not calling one witness at the suppression hearing because it didn’t change the outcome on defendant’s lack of standing or the alternative ground of consent to enter and then plain view. United States v. Pantle, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125803 (N.D.Fla. August 11, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125804 (N.D. Fla. September 21, 2015).*
“Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence … [are recommended] DENIED because: (1) Corporal McFarland had probable cause to stop Cervi’s vehicle; (2) the facts surrounding this case reveal that Cervi was not detained in a way analogous to arrest and Corporal McFarland’s inquiry into whether Cervi had drugs in the vehicle did not necessitate Miranda warnings; (3) Corporal McFarland had reasonable suspicion to extend Cervi’s traffic stop; and (4) the preponderance of the evidence supports that Cervi gave valid and voluntary oral consent for Corporal McFarland to search his vehicle. Even if the Defendant did not consent to the search of his vehicle, the inevitable discovery rule would nevertheless apply.” United States v. Cervi, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125631 (N.D.W.Va. July 29, 2015),* adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126905 (N.D.W.Va. September 21, 2015).*
It was objectively unreasonable to shoot a young man with a gun to his own head when his back was to the officers. Plaintiff also made a prima facie due process claim for being framed by the police for assaulting an officer. “Deliberate framing of a person by the state offends the most strongly held values of our nation.” “As the Third Circuit has stated, ‘no sensible concept of ordered liberty is consistent with law enforcement cooking up its own evidence.’ Here, the framing was allegedly done in order to conceal and justify excessive force against one of the people our laws and systems are supposed to protect. The rule of law, which we have cherished since our founding, cannot abide such conduct.” Cole v. Carson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17011 (5th Cir. September 25, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inExcessive force, Police misconduct|Comments Off on CA5: Shooting suicidal person in back so he wouldn’t turn was objectively unreasonable; framing him for assault on an officer violates due process
An Obama administration working group has explored four possible approaches tech companies might use that would allow law enforcement to unlock encrypted communications — access that some tech firms say their systems are not set up to provide.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court occupies a super secure space inside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, behind a biometric hand-scanner and wood-and-metal doors that seal into the walls. The secret courtroom has been forbidden to all but the government officials seeking warrants in national-security investigations. But it may soon admit an outsider. The spy court recently appointed Washington, D.C., lawyer Preston Burton to weigh in on whether the government can retain millions of telephone records that it has collected in bulk since at least 2006, in light of a law Congress passed in June phasing out the intelligence program.
Posted inNational security|Comments Off on Wall Street Journal Law Blog: Spy Court Recruits Outside Lawyer in Phone-Records Case
Mr. Brown, whose criminal record includes drug and assault charges, is at the center of an experiment taking place in dozens of police departments across the country, one in which the authorities have turned to complex computer algorithms to try to pinpoint the people most likely to be involved in future violent crimes — as either predator or prey. The goal is to do all they can to prevent the crime from happening.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NYTimes: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes
WASHINGTON — Employees of the United States Postal Service failed to properly safeguard documents that included the names, addresses and financial information used by its law enforcement arm to monitor the mail of people suspected of criminal activities or for national security purposes, an internal investigation found.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NYTimes: Postal Service Failed to Protect Personal Data in Mail Surveillance, Report Says
"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.
