CA1: SW was in good faith where affidavit was accidentally not filed with court

The Postal Inspector here prepared the search warrant affidavit, and the affidavit was to be incorporated with the warrant. The warrant was filed, however, by the USAO without the affidavit attached. The good faith exception applies. The officer did nothing wrong. This was at worst just an isolated act of negligence, and the district court erred in suppressing the search. United States v. Medina, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 952 (1st Cir. Jan. 15, 2025):

Continue reading →
Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA1: SW was in good faith where affidavit was accidentally not filed with court

DE: Instagram SW was narrowly limited by time

Instagram warrants were supported by probable cause showing both that crimes occurred and that evidence would be found in the account, based on the detailed facts in the affidavits. The warrants satisfied the particularity requirement as the date ranges were tailored to the probable cause, and the breadth of data categories was justified by defendant’s use of Instagram as an instrumentality of his crimes. As to a cell phone, defendant didn’t have standing. Coffield v. State, 2025 Del. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 14, 2025).

Officers had a DNA warrant for defendant. Because of his history of violence they reasonably detained and handcuffed him. He spontaneously admitted to having a gun. United States v. Stiff, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6985 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 14, 2025).*

Detaining plaintiff at gunpoint was reasonable. The bodycam shows him running into another person with his truck, and he was hostile to the officers. Spratlen v. Rainey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237222 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6461 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2025).*

Posted in Seizure, Social media warrants | Comments Off on DE: Instagram SW was narrowly limited by time

CA5: Where place to be searched appeared to be one residence, not two, SW valid

The search warrant was for 8977 Deer Trail Run, but it turned out to be two properties. “From all outward appearances there was only one property, not two. The officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith in relying on the warrant.” The affidavit was not bare bones, and there was no material false statement. United States v. Siegert, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 844 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).

Objecting only to the alternative holdings for the R&R doesn’t even challenge the probable cause, which is present. R&R adopted. United States v. McDowell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6753 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 14, 2025).*

Defense counsel’s boilerplate motion to suppress that cited no law or facts and referred to nonexistent things was mentioned as a possible ineffective assistance of counsel claim, among other claims, but only by one dissenter. People v. Howard, 2025 NY Slip Op 00184, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 39 (Jan. 14, 2025).* [Seen that many times before; that’s just lazy and shows they don’t intend to pursue suppression.]

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Waiver | Comments Off on CA5: Where place to be searched appeared to be one residence, not two, SW valid

E.D.Okla.: Search of lawyers and their cars coming into jail did not obstruct access to counsel

Stopping and searching the car and person of defense counsel coming into a USMS jail did not violate defendant’s right to access to counsel. The limitations were all reasonable. United States v. Freeman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2025):

Continue reading →
Posted in Prison and jail searches, Privileges | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Search of lawyers and their cars coming into jail did not obstruct access to counsel

NY Albany Co.: Unrestrained administrative searches of cannabis stores violates 4A

Petitioners show a likelihood of success on their claim for injunctive relief from unrestrained “administrative inspections,” essentially without boundaries. Super Smoke N Save LLC v. N.Y. State Cannabis Control Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 25009 (Albany Co. Jan. 13, 2025). As to colonial writs of assistance:

Continue reading →
Posted in Administrative search | Comments Off on NY Albany Co.: Unrestrained administrative searches of cannabis stores violates 4A

D.Minn.: Overdose call justified frisk

Police encountered defendant because he was experiencing an overdose. A frisk of his pockets for the cause produced a gun. United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236845 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4921 (D.Minn. Jan. 10, 2025).

The state search warrant here was without probable cause and the good faith exception didn’t apply. A federal search warrant, however, was valid. United States v. Tyson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6604 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2025).* (A long convoluted case about computer search warrant and lack of probable cause.).

The car defendant was in was suspected of recent car burglaries, and that was reason for the stop. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5932 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2025).*

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Emergency / exigency, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Overdose call justified frisk

CA2: Mental health seizure for danger to self or others requires PC and exigency

“[A] ‘warrantless seizure for the purpose of involuntary hospitalization may be made only upon probable cause, that is, only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person seized is dangerous to [him]self or to others.” Singh v. City of New York, 23-24-cv, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1898, 2024 WL 319117, at 3 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).” Accardi v. Cty. of Suffolk, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (2d Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).

“During the stop he witnessed Chandler’s defensive behavior, his admission to having just been released from prison, and the presence of two passengers whom Officer Seibert knew had previously been involved in criminal activity. Not only did Officer Seibert have personal knowledge that Chandler had violated multiple traffic laws but, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government, …, we conclude that the district court correctly found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the car Chandler was driving had been stolen ….” United States v. Chandler, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 756 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).*

The evidence showed that the inventory of defendant’s car complied with the agency’s inventory policy. United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 752 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA2: Mental health seizure for danger to self or others requires PC and exigency

DE: Probation searches of individuals include their residence

The statute on individuals subject to probation searches includes their residences. State v. Crooks, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 830 (Dec. 31, 2024).

There were exigent circumstances based on the reported gunshot, potential threat to officers and public safety, and the likelihood that a firearm was present in defendant’s apartment. The protective sweep was reasonable in scope and duration, limited to areas where a person could be found. As to the search warrant, the court held that the good-faith exception applied because the affidavit did not contain deliberately or recklessly false statements. In addition, the court found that even without the allegedly false or misleading statements, the affidavit established probable cause based on the evidence of a gunshot and potential crime. United States v. Turner, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 705 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025).*

There was probable cause for a search, so defendant was not coerced into consenting. People v. Ramsey, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 117 (Queens Co. Jan. 13, 2025).*

Posted in Consent, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search | Comments Off on DE: Probation searches of individuals include their residence

W.D.Pa.: No standing to contest civil investigative demands to third parties over medical records

Defendant had no standing to contest civil investigative demands to third parties, even involving medical records of others. United States v. Hertel & Brown Physical & Aquatic Therapy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6437 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2025):

Continue reading →
Posted in Privileges, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: No standing to contest civil investigative demands to third parties over medical records

D.Minn.: Photographs could be taken during execution of SW

Photographs could be taken during execution of a search warrant. United States v. Schultz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236848 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4918 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025).

In a case involving whether defendant was felon in possession for this underlying crime, he is precluded by the government’s motion in limine from arguing the government’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, too. United States v. Romero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4212 (D. Alaska Jan. 8, 2025).*

Stopping in the crosswalk justified defendant’s stop. State v. Shay, 2025-Ohio-71 (3d Dist. Jan. 13, 2025).*

Defendant would not have felt free to leave when he was approached by officers, handcuffed and moved a few feet away to sit down. All this was, however, with probable cause. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5932 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2025).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Seizure | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Photographs could be taken during execution of SW

E.D.Mich.: Officer seizing notebooks couldn’t authenticate them as exhibits at trial

The seizing officer could not authenticate defendant’s notebooks as evidence at the trial. He had no knowledge about how they came into being. United States v. Sherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5696 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2025).

Defendant’s admission at the time of the search that the drugs in his workspace were his were admissible, and that was sufficient to support his conviction despite his denial when testifying. State v. Rollison, 2025-Ohio-72 (3d Dist. Jan. 13, 2025).*

“The Court cannot accept Mr. Wright’s assertion that removing his underwear in the emergency department, during his treatment for a drug overdose, was an unreasonable search. Although Mr. Wright contends that removing an overdose patient’s clothes is unnecessary and naloxone is the reasonable treatment, he offers no record evidence to show that it was unreasonable for HCMC medical staff to remove his underwear as part of their treatment plan for him—the issue was not a subject of this Court’s motions hearing whatsoever.” United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236845 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4921 (D. Minn. Jan. 10, 2025).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Officer seizing notebooks couldn’t authenticate them as exhibits at trial

D.P.R.: State nighttime search rule on state warrant inapplicable in federal court

The fact a state nighttime search warrant doesn’t comply with state law doesn’t matter in federal court. It’s whether Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment were complied with. Then, the defendant has to show prejudice. Also, the fact defendant had the “mental acuity” to attempt to deceive the officers during the search undermines defendant’s claim he didn’t have the acuity to consent. United States v. Vidal-Collazo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5692 (D.P.R. Jan. 10, 2025).

“Avery actually presented his Fourth Amendment claim to the state trial court in his pretrial motion to suppress. He later presented his Fourth Amendment claim to the Michigan appellate courts. It is apparent that the state provided an opportunity for Avery to litigate his search-and-seizure issue and that nothing in the process frustrated that procedural opportunity. He may not now present his Fourth Amendment claim on habeas review.” Avery v. Burgess, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Police executing a warrant on a business talked to employees and none of them were detained when they voluntarily talked to them. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4083 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Custody, Issue preclusion, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on D.P.R.: State nighttime search rule on state warrant inapplicable in federal court

TX: Judge sanctioned for blocking DNA testing of class A misdemeanants without authority

A former judge of the Harris County Criminal Court was sanctioned by the Texas Supreme Court for issuing orders of protection barring the Sheriff from taking DNA samples from class A misdemeanants because the judge believed the statute requiring it was unconstitutional. Whether it is unconstitutional isn’t decided. In re Bynum, 2024 Tex. LEXIS 1182 (Spec. Ct. of Rev. Appointed by the Supreme Court of Texas Dec. 27, 2024).

Police executing a warrant on a business talked to employees and none of them were detained when they voluntarily talked to them. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4083 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025).*

This case involves CSLI in a fraud case, and defendant’s Franks challenge fails. On the whole, there was probable cause, even deleting the challenged information. United States v. Falcon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3825 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2025).*

In a case involving whether whether he was a felon in possession for this underlying crime, defendant is precluded by the government’s motion in limine from arguing the government’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, too. United States v. Romero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4212 (D. Alaska Jan. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, DNA, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on TX: Judge sanctioned for blocking DNA testing of class A misdemeanants without authority

Reason: DEA ends airport gate searches after years of documented abuses of civil asset forfeiture

Reason: DEA ends airport gate searches after years of documented abuses of civil asset forfeiture by C.J. Ciaramella (“The Justice Department temporarily suspended the program in November because of ‘significant risks’ of constitutional violations.”):

Continue reading →
Posted in Airport searches, Forfeiture | Comments Off on Reason: DEA ends airport gate searches after years of documented abuses of civil asset forfeiture

CA8: When there’s PC for a SW, standing doesn’t even have to be decided

In a tax fraud case, there were six search warrants. Defendants challenge them all. Standing was in dispute, but doesn’t even have to be decided because there clearly is probable cause for all six, despite the claim that one piece of the probable cause was a look through a window seeing incriminating documents. There was still probable cause even without that. A hearing wasn’t even required because the disputed fact, the look through the window, wasn’t material. United States v. Charles, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 906 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).

“Whether an affidavit’s information is stale is a case-by-case analysis. … Under this analysis, ‘the length of time between the events listed in the affidavit and the application for the warrant’ is salient but not dispositive. Id. At its core, the staleness analysis turns on “‘the inherent nature of the crime”’ and whether an affidavit establishes that officers have a fair probability of finding evidence at the searched property when they search it. … In that vein, the Sixth Circuit has provided four factors to guide staleness inquiries: (1) ‘the character of the crime’; (2) ‘the criminal’; (3) ‘the thing to be seized’; and (4) ‘the place to be searched.’ … These factors are addressed below, demonstrating that the information in Detective Sauve’s affidavit was not stale.” United States v. Schalk, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3808 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2025).*

This case involves CSLI in a fraud case, and defendant’s Franks challenge fails. On the whole, there was probable cause, even deleting the challenged information. United States v. Falcon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3825 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Staleness, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: When there’s PC for a SW, standing doesn’t even have to be decided

ID: DV NCO denies def standing in premises

Issuance of an NCO on defendant denies him standing when he was found in the premises he was ordered from. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy once ordered away. Prior cases in accord are not overruled. State v. Ortiz, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 8, 2025).

An officer patrolling a high crime area at a motel on request of the owner because of drug deals and trespassing on the parking lot had reasonable suspicion. He saw defendant, engaged in a conversation which suggested he was there without any justification. He said he was meeting a friend but was unsure of the name and was waiting for her to come out. He admitted he’d just gotten out of the pen for bank robbery, and the officer saw a gun and high capacity drum magazine in the car. United States v. Cole, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 430 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025).*

An identified informant has some built-in reliability. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3800 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on ID: DV NCO denies def standing in premises

Reason: Nevada Judge to Nevada Cops: You Can’t Use This Loophole To Get Around Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

Reason: Nevada Judge to Nevada Cops: You Can’t Use This Loophole To Get Around Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform by C.J. Ciaramella (“In the first decision of its kind in Nevada, a judge ruled last week that state law enforcement can’t evade stricter requirements for seizing cash and property by partnering with the federal government. The plaintiff in that lawsuit, a Marine veteran named Stephen Lara, had nearly $90,000 in cash seized from him in 2021 by two Nevada Highway Patrol officers. The cops admitted to Lara that there was nothing illegal about carrying large amounts of cash. But they decided that Lara’s money was likely drug proceeds, and they coordinated with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to forfeit it through a process called civil asset forfeiture.”)

Posted in Forfeiture | Comments Off on Reason: Nevada Judge to Nevada Cops: You Can’t Use This Loophole To Get Around Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

WaPo: Arrested by AI: Police ignore standards after facial recognition matches

WaPo: Arrested by AI: Police ignore standards after facial recognition matches by Douglas MacMillan, David Ovalle & Aaron Schaffer (“Confident in unproven facial recognition technology, sometimes investigators skip steps; at least eight Americans have been wrongfully arrested.”):

Continue reading →
Posted in Facial recognition | Comments Off on WaPo: Arrested by AI: Police ignore standards after facial recognition matches

FL5: Dog alert on MJ before case law said it wasn’t PC anymore was in good faith

Newer cases hold that a drug dog can’t differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana, so a dog alert doesn’t provide probable cause. Where the dog sniff occurred before that holding, however, it was reasonable under the good faith exception. Ford v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 187 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 7, 2025).

There was at least a good faith basis to bring a criminal case when it was first initiated, and the fact they didn’t continue to investigate doesn’t undermine that initial probable cause. Bickham v. Czebiniak, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2496 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025).*

A 2255 petition that only alleges that defense counsel failed to file a motion to suppress to challenge illegally seized evidence didn’t state a claim. What evidence? Davis v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3668 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Summary judgment was properly granted on qualified immunity grounds because the law was not clearly established in 2015 that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by entering the curtilage of a home through an unlocked gate and reaching out to arrest someone standing in plain view near the street. Sauceda v. Lopez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on FL5: Dog alert on MJ before case law said it wasn’t PC anymore was in good faith

FL3: With a change in statute, mere possession of a firearm in a high crime area wasn’t RS

“While the officer observed Sheppard with a concealed weapon in a high crime area, under the revised statute making non-licensure an element of the crime of concealed carry, Sheppard’s mere possession of the concealed weapon did not constitute criminal activity. … [¶] Thus, we are compelled to conclude that the officers lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct the subject investigatory stop.” Sheppard v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 221 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 8, 2025).

“The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses appellate review of the denial of his motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.” People v. Dickerson, 2025 NY Slip Op 00108 (2d Dept. Jan. 8, 2025).*

“This record clearly demonstrates that Petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment Claims in the Delaware state courts. The fact that Petitioner disagrees with these decisions and/or the reasoning utilized therein is insufficient to overcome the Stone bar.” Montgomery v. Emig, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3608 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on FL3: With a change in statute, mere possession of a firearm in a high crime area wasn’t RS