Named informant actually signed the search warrant, and it was based on personal information so probable cause was shown. Officers went to the defendant's premises and found him outside and arrested him. They did not have the search warrant in hand but it was coming. They used defendant's key to enter the house and look for confederates who might destroy the drugs being sought while waiting for the warrant to arrive, and this was lawful under Segura. People v Osorio, 2006 NY Slip Op 8457, 2006 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15969 (4th Dept. November 17, 2006).
Officers heard defendant on a wire admit to possessing stolen property and wanting to trade it for meth and having guns. "Johnson and Lebo stated that the Defendant had made threats about killing the cops if they came out. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable to believe that contraband and/or stolen property was at the Defendant's residence and that the circumstances required that they go to the mobile home without a warrant." [Note that the court says "to" not "into."] The police then went to his house and kicked the door to announce as a knock and talk. The defendant let them in [it seems to me more like they barged in when the door was opened]. The USMJ's R&R that defendant consented is adopted. United States v. Medley, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1175 (E.D. Mo. January 5, 2007).*
Plaintiff consented to entry but claimed that she did not consent to search. Court finds implicit consent from failure to object and finds apparent authority to implicitly consent to the search of her daughter's room. Owens v. Town of Delhi, 469 F. Supp. 2d 403 (W.D. La. 2007)* (Note: This case proceeds entirely on the judge's and government's assumption that a person knows that they can object when an armed police officer is going through their stuff who essentially barged in. It is all implied consent from failure to object.)
Inmate's § 1983 action for harassing searches was barred under PLRA for lack of exhaustion. The state provided an ALJ process which was not taken advantage of. Hills v. Kershaw Correctional Inst. Officers, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94541 (N.D. S.C. November 27, 2006).*
Officer's reasonable suspicion for a trash search as required under Litchfield was shown in the affidavit for probable cause that was used to get a search warrant for his premises. Eshelman v. State, 859 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. App. January 10, 2007).
Defendant consented to a patdown, and continued stop was based on reasonable suspicion. "Officer Andrew Tischer testified at the suppression hearing that he stopped Lewer's car and that after the stop he asked Lewer for identification and that Lewer gave him either a driver's license or a state identification card, but that he was 'not a hundred percent sure which one.' Tischer told the trial court that Lewer 'wouldn't look me in the eyes[, his] hands were visibly shaking, and his voice stumbled as I spoke with him.' Tischer also testified that Lewer's 'right hand was making continued movements towards his right pants pocket and his right jacket pocket.' At this point, Tischer testified that he asked Lewer to get out of the car because he thought that Lewer might have a weapon. Tischer estimated that one to one and one-half minutes had passed from when he walked up to Lewer's car and when he asked Lewer to get out of the car." Heroin was validly found during the consensual patdown which defendant knew was for more than just weapons. State v. Lewer, 2006 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1223 (December 27, 2006).
Officers handcuffing of child during execution of a search warrant was potentially unreasonable because he was compliant and vastly outnumbered by police officers. The law was settled in this Circuit, and qualified immunity did not apply. Schafer v. El Dorado County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1336 (E.D. Cal. January 9, 2007).
The trucking industry is a closely regulated industry under Burger, and the stop of this truck was supported by the administrative scheme. Once stopped, the defendants were found to be in violation of the log book rules and driving without a license. That made the detention reasonable. After a safety inspection, during which the defendants acted a little suspicious, one defendant validly consented to a search that turn up 92 lbs. of cocaine. United States v. Delgado, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1313 (S.D. Cal. January 5, 2007)* (Note: The stop was near Springfield, Missouri, so Missouri law was examined.).
Defendant consented to entry of dwelling for the purposes of children being gathered up and turned over to their mother. Drugs were found in plain view. Seizure was valid. United States v. White, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1476 (W.D. Tex. January 8, 2007).*
Defendant waived search issues by his guilty plea, but he would have lost on the merits anyway. United States v. Sanchez-Polanco, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1485 (S.D. Tex. January 8, 2007).*
In a habeas case, the petitioner claimed Stone v. Powell did not apply to harmless error analysis, but it was defaulted because it was not raised in the state PCR petition. Walker v. Miller-Stout, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1351 (E.D. Wash. January 8, 2007).*
Qualified immunity defeated § 1983 action of alleged unreasonable search where plaintiffs did not show how it was unreasonable. Housley v. City of Edina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1502 (D. Minn. January 5, 2007).*
|<< <||Current||> >>|
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys: Many district courts
FDsys: Many federal courts
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
State courts (and some USDC opinions)
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
Most recent SCOTUS
2009 to date:
Riley v. California, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog)
United States v. Wurie, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, granted Nov. 15, argued Mar. 4 (ScotusBlog)
Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (Nov. 4, 2013) (per curiam)
Navarette v. California, granted Oct.1, argued Jan. 21 (ScotusBlog)
Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (Feb. 25) (ScotusBlog)
Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other blog)
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Camreta v. Greene, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog)
City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Curiae (Yale Law)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"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
—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
—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
"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]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
—Pepé Le Pew
"There is never enough time, unless you are serving it."
"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)