A Washington state ABC compliance check of a licensed establishment that only had officers in open areas was not a search under the constitutions. Dodge City Saloon v. Wash. State Liquor Control Bd., 168 Wn. App. 388, 288 P.3d 343 (2012):

In this case, the Liquor Board's actions did not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes because the Liquor Board did not violate Dodge City's privacy interests. Dodge City had no reasonable privacy interest in areas of its licensed premises that it actively invites the public to enter. Barlow's Inc., 436 U.S. at 315. Even if, as Dodge City argues, it had a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy to exclude persons under 21 years old, which it did not, Dodge City lost that interest when it voluntarily admitted C.M. onto the premises. United States v. Bramble, 103 F.3d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Once consent has been obtained from one with authority to give it, any expectation of privacy has been lost."). Thus, the Liquor Board's officers did not conduct a "search" when they entered the public portions of Dodge City's premises and observed only what members of the public could also observe. Likewise, the Liquor Board's officers did not conduct a "search" when they observed C.M.'s entry into Dodge City from a public street. Accordingly, because there was no "search" in this case, the Liquor Board's actions do not implicate constitutional considerations and Dodge City has no "search" on which to base a Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7 unreasonable search and seizure claim. Centimark Corp., 129 Wn. App. at 375.

Attempted search of water department employee’s meters was not in violation of clearly established law, so the complaint failed to state a claim for relief against city officials, if it even violated the Fourth Amendment. Clemente v. Vaslo, 679 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2012).*

Defendant’s admission that he had child pornography on his flash drive being used on a university library computer was justification for his arrest by university police. He consented to a further search. United States v. LaPradd, 480 Fed. Appx. 405, 2012 FED App. 0495N (6th Cir. 2012).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing a search claim that would have lost under the automobile exception anyway. United States v. Whitfield, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67292 (E.D. Va. May 11, 2012).*

Defendant first failed to show that he had standing to challenge a search of open fields asserted to be curtilage. Then, it was open fields, and, alternatively, he consented. United States v. Wilburn, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66300 (E.D. Ky. March 5, 2012)*:

The Court is simply unable to assess whether Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the propane tank was discovered. Significantly, no evidence was presented to establish ownership or other interest in the land where the propane tank was located. As discussed above, the "defendant claiming that a search violated his Fourth Amendment rights has the burden of demonstrating that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place that was searched." Mastromatteo, 538 F.3d at 544 (quoting Talley, 275 F.3d at 563. Here, Defendant did not present any evidence regarding this issue and has failed to meet his burden. Thus, the Court concludes that, although Defendant has standing to challenge the search of his home, he lacks standing to challenge the search of the property where the propane tank was located. Nevertheless, to ensure a complete analysis, the Court will assume for purposes of this Recommended Disposition that Defendant has standing to challenge both searches.

Defendant was driving through hotel parking lots apparently casing cars for break-in when he was stopped. It was a high crime area for break-ins, and the police were looking. “The necessary suspicion for an investigative Terry stop is not a high bar.” United States v. Stacks, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67422 (W.D. N.C. May 14, 2012).*

Defendant’s failure to identify a document that witnesses to a consent search were not examined about does not justify 2255 relief. Based on the findings at the suppression hearing, it seems highly unlikely this document would change the outcome anyway. Jones v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66194 (M.D. Tenn. May 11, 2012).*

Warrant for defendant’s arrest justified police entry into the house to arrest him, and then do a protective sweep after a gun was seen. United States v. Tran, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67238 (N.D. Iowa May 15, 2012).*

Defendant was a school resource officer, and his desk was searched in a fraud investigation seizing his computer and bank statements. The search was not sustainable as a workplace search under Ortega and United States v. Slanina, 283 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2002), judgment vacated on other grounds, 537 U.S. 802, 123 S.Ct. 69 (2002). United States v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67294 (W.D. La. May 14, 2012), R&R 871 F. Supp. 2d 539 (W.D. La. March 20, 2012):

Under Slanina, the Government is correct that the status of the "searcher" as a "law enforcement officer is not dispositive," and that "'work related misconduct' can include criminal activity unrelated to the job." [Doc. No. 31, p. 4]. However, the Government asks the Court to ignore the "critical distinction" between this case and Slanina: whether an investigation was "wholly criminal" or had the dual purpose of an internal investigation into work-related misconduct and into the possible commission of a crime. In this case, there was no dual purpose; the single purpose of this investigation was Johnson's possible commission of a crime. On September 8, 2008, Sergeant Charles Roark of the MPD, opened a criminal investigation into the sale of stolen merchandise through an eBay account in Johnson's name. On September 12, 2008, Sergeant Roark asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to become involved. By the time they searched Johnson's desk at Carroll Junior High School on February 20, 2009, Sergeant Roark and Agent Chesser had been involved in a joint criminal investigation of Johnson for six months. Under these circumstances, the MPD's interest in the prompt and efficient operation of its workplace is not compelling in the least. The search of Johnson's desk should not be reviewed under the O'Connor exception, as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit, and Magistrate Judge Hayes properly recommended the exclusion of the evidence found as a result of the search of Johnson's desk.

The district court’s finding of consent was, it said, a close call, but defendant was advised of his right to refuse and consented. [Thus, advice of right to refuse consent was apparently determinative when consent was a close call.] United States v. Mendoza, 677 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2012)*:

. . . The validity of consent is a question of fact, which we review for clear error. See id.

The district court recognized the factual record made this case a close call. On the one hand, Mendoza did not explicitly state the officers were permitted to search the Louis Place residence or sign the consent-to-search form, and the significant police presence at the roadside stop and the residence raise the possibility Mendoza merely acquiesced to police authority. See id. at 773. On the other hand, Mendoza's gestures and body language indicated his consent. Officer Fink and Detective Batcheller specifically informed Mendoza of his right to refuse consent, and Mendoza clearly understood this right, because he initially refused consent and bargained with the officers regarding the terms of his consent.

There was no clear error in the district court’s determination that defendant’s girlfriend he shared a bedroom with consented to a search of the bedroom to look for guns. She admitted it on the stand, too. She was not advised of a right to refuse, but that is only a factor. United States v. Graham, 480 Fed. Appx. 453 (9th Cir. 2012).*

Defendant was stopped because his car was illegally parked and that was justification for the officer approaching the defendant and observing him allegedly under the influence. Miller v. Chenoweth, 2012 W. Va. LEXIS 276 (May 10, 2012).*