“[T]he Court finds that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified based on the fact that there was a violent altercation in the apartment, evidence of blood on people, the entrance, and inside the apartment and based on the information that individuals — including several children — and a firearm were said to be still inside. See Flores-Castaneda, 384 Fed. Appx. at 367; see also United States v. Rodriguez, 601 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that ‘domestic disputes often involve high emotions and can quickly escalate to violence’).” United States v. Fuentes, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153004 (E.D. Tex. November 10, 2011).*
Based on collective knowledge, officers had reasonable suspicion that a Honda and a cargo van driving in tandem from one place to another were hauling drugs in the van. The collective knowledge doctrine applies to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Montero, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153022 (W.D. Ky. November 1, 2011).*
Pulling up behind a car with just headlights on and the officer knocking on the window does not communicate that the person is not free to leave. State v. Randle, 152 Idaho 860, 276 P.3d 732 (App. 2012),* Review denied by State v. Randle, 2012 Ida. LEXIS 132 (Idaho, May 22, 2012).
USMJ finds that officer was not credible because the proof at the suppression hearing was developed by leading questions, and the officer seemed to have little independent recollection of the stop, needing to repeatedly look at this file. Also, there was a proven embellishment in the reports. United States v. Northington, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153029 (E.D. N.C. November 29, 2011):
Further detracting, at least to some degree, from Daughtry's credibility is the fact that various portions of the direct examination of him were leading in character. (Id., e.g., 14:21; 15:8-10; 18:3-4; 18:15-17; 19:7-8; 19:10-11; 21:7; 21:15-17; 30:13-15; 30:20-21). In addition, Daughtry repeatedly looked at his report for the first two-thirds of his direct examination before the questioning was stopped and Daughtry provided time to review it. (Id. 21:23 to 22:16). The inference, of course, is that Daughtry lacked a strong, if any, independent recollection of the events about which he was being examined.
The court concludes that Daughtry is not a reliable source of information regarding the stop of defendant. As discussed, his lack of credibility is shown by a broad range of factors, including the implausibility of certain statements he made, the inconsistency of his conduct with certain statements, the inconsistency of his testimony with his report and/or the ATF Letter, the inconsistency of portions of his testimony with other portions, the inconsistency of his testimony with portions of Johnson's testimony, omissions from his report, and other factors. Some of the statements shown to lack credibility relate to facts central to the question of reasonable suspicion and their unreliability therefore directly undermines the government's case on that issue. But the other statements are also material to reasonable suspicion because they shed light on Daughtry's overall credibility.
Similarly, there are statements by Daughtry that do not themselves bear indicia of unreliability and there is some evidence tending to support Daughtry's credibility, such as Johnson's corroboration of Daughtry's testimony that defendant was acting erratically (see id. 92:10-21). However, the number of statements that do bear such indicia, the significance of many of these statements to the issue of reasonable suspicion, and the underlying deficiencies in veracity the demonstrably noncredible statements reveal, such as possible misperceptions, deficient memory, and embellishment, render all of Daughtry's statements unreliable. Given the government's reliance on Daughtry's statements to support its case on reasonable suspicion, his lack of credibility precludes the government from establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that reasonable suspicion existed. Defendant's motion to suppress should accordingly be allowed.
This case isn't really precedent for anything, but it is significant for all of us to see how this court discounted testimony when the government carries the burden of proving reasonable suspicion because of "possible misperceptions, deficient memory, and embellishment." Look, officers: you don't need to embellish. Your truthful testimony will usually carry the day. If it doesn't, too bad; you were operating on a hunch. Having made the arrest, you felt you had to follow through to bring some "bad guy" to justice. The ADA or AUSA, however, took your reports at face value, as they are expected to. When you had to be led through the testimony, the AUSA here should have seen this coming. And, AUSA's, don't lead. Let the case collapse of its own weight. You got the indictment, but you don't own this case. Also, this was a Federal Defender case.
Where defendant was under state probation that included a search term and he was revoked and put back on probation with new conditions and no express search term, California law precluded a search term under such circumstances. United States v. Silva, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152967 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 2011).*
Plaintiff was believed to have purchased t-posts for his property with a stolen check. Some were installed on his property and some were in his truck when he was stopped. They were in plain view, and the officer had probable cause for the seizure. Thompson v. City of Shawnee, 464 Fed. Appx. 720 (10th Cir. 2012).*
Defendant was felony fleeing from officers and stopped and attempted to hide. He was arrested, and his car was properly impounded after his arrest. United States v. Scott, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14053 (W.D. Mo. January 5, 2012).*
|<< <||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)