NYT: Drug Testing in Schools Divides North Jersey District by Daniel E. Slotnik:
Defendant’s stop coming out of a drug house as a search warrant arrived was reasonable under Summers and Bailey. State v. Burdette, 2013 Ohio 4395, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4635 (2d Dist. October 4, 2013).*
Defendant characterized himself as an overnight guest in the place searched. He was asleep on the couch after a party and didn’t testify. “We find from this limited evidence appellant was not at the Blymyer residence as an "overnight guest" as contemplated by Olson.” State v. Grose, 2013 Ohio 4387, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4625 (5th Dist. September 27, 2013).*
Reasonable suspicion existed from defendant’s recent purchase of more pseudoephedrine with an alert from a computer system of pseudo purchases. State v. Solis, 409 S.W.3d 584 (Mo. App. 2013).*
In a document search warrant, the government could seize and search six hard drives from defendant’s house and examine each to look for the sought after records. United States v. Brown, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143689 (E.D. Pa. October 3, 2013).*
Two controlled buys corroborated the CI. The search warrant was issued more than a month after the second controlled buy and it wasn’t stale because this was an ongoing drug operation. United States v. Gragg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143411 (N.D. Iowa October 1, 2013).*
Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the car because of being involved in a gang shooting with a shooting victim in the car and them looking for the shooters to retaliate. In the Interest of L. P., 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 798 (October 2, 2013).*
Use of a flash bang device as an excessive search requiring suppression of the search is rejected. “The primary case relied upon by Defendants is Boyd v. Benton Co., 374 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2004) which was a civil rights suit brought alleging excessive use of force by police officers. Though the Boyd court found that the use of the flash bang device was an excessive use of force, the question of admissibility of evidence in a criminal proceeding was not addressed.” United States v. Honeycutt, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143512 (N.D. Ga. October 3, 2013).
Defendant’s generalized motion to suppress on numerous grounds is denied for lack of specificity. He didn’t have the warrant affidavit when making the motion. United States v. Carraway, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143086 (S.D. Ill. October 3, 2013).*
Defendant was speeding 85 in a 55 and was stopped. He told the officer that there was an emergency at his home with his elderly mother, and the officer followed him there. There was exigent circumstances from the entry, and defendant never objected to the officer following him into the house. United States v. Ruppert, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144054 (W.D. N.Y. June 14, 2013).*
Defendant’s statements were involuntary under Miranda and suppressed. That led to an unreasonable seizure of evidence in his bag. United States v. Archuleta, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143490 (D. Utah October 3, 2013):
Co-conspirator told to drive somebody else’s car with drugs in it who had a duty to keep the car secure still did not have standing. United States v. Santos, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143489 (D. Utah October 3, 2013):
Defendant was brought in to talk about her husband’s arrest for drug activity off-base. She was not the focus of the investigation. “One of the AFOSI agents took the smoke break with the appellant. He testified, ‘I told her that it’s just a consent to search her house; we weren't looking at her we were looking at her husband, and she didn't have to sign it.’ He also told the appellant ‘if she hadn't done anything wrong that [sic] she had nothing to worry about.’” She consented, and it was valid. United States v. Olson, 2013 CCA LEXIS 822 (A.F. C.C.A. September 11, 2013).*
Officers were inside by consent, and they were looking for somebody involved in a shooting. They told defendant to stand up and a gun was under where he was lying. That was in plain view. United States v. Antone-Herron, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142589 (N.D. Ala. September 20, 2013).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging GPS on his car where Jones was decided two years after his conviction. It would have been overruled at the time and affirmed on appeal, and the good faith exception would have applied. Hutcherson v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143249 (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2013).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in historical cell site location data. In any event, the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Moreno-Nevarez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143900 (S.D. Cal. October 1, 2013):
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
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 cases:
Plumhoff v. Rickard, granted Nov. 15, argued Mar. 4 (ScotusBlog)
Stanton v. Sims, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 7773 (Nov. 4, 2013) (per curiam)
Navarette v. California, granted Oct.1, argued Jan. 21 (ScotusBlog)
Fernandez v. California, granted May 20, argued Nov. 13 (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)