Defendant was arrested for a violent crime and had DNA taken from him. Those charges were nolle prossed, but the DNA made it to CODIS and matched him to another crime. Use of that evidence in the new case did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 79 A.3d 410 (2013).
Plaintiff’s prison strip search after a cell shake down was reasonable. Moton v. Walker, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22654 (11th Cir. November 5, 2013).
Plaintiff previously litigated the probable cause for her arrest to Eighth Circuit and lost (Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 2010)), so that precludes her from litigating it again in state court. Veatch v. City of Waverly, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 1169 (November 6, 2013).*
An officer’s inability to read a temporary license plate that was otherwise in order led to a stop that was without reasonable suspicion. Defendant did nothing wrong. State v. Carmody, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 1145 (November 6, 2013):
Two anonymous calls that were recorded provided no indicia of reliability. The police tried to call back and got no answer. United States v. Freeman, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22594 (2d Cir. November 7, 2013)*:
Officer who arrested 1983 plaintiff for possession of a semi-automatic weapon who was clearly on a “journey,” a complete defense at the time [since strengthened by new state law], had no qualified immunity. Because of the complete defense, there was no probable cause for the arrest. Stoner v. Watlingten, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22586 (8th Cir. November 7, 2013).
The product of wiretaps was attested to by four officers on the search warrant affidavit. Defendant was talking about packaging and distributing drugs. That was probable cause. United States v. Dowdell, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22619 (4th Cir. November 7, 2013).*
Officers were called to a domestic disturbance, and they approached plaintiff’s house in the dark without sirens and saw him come out with a shotgun pointing down. They shot him without warning. They were not entitled to qualified immunity in a 1983 case. Cooper v. Sheehan, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22616 (4th Cir. November 7, 2013)*:
PC was shown for a search of defendant’s house based on the fact he left the house after phone calls to make drug transactions. State v. Russell, 2013-Ohio-4895, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5086 (9th Dist. November 6, 2013).
Two warrants were issued on defendant 30 days apart and the second warrant had the information from the first one plus new information. The new information made the second warrant not stale. Given that the lapse could make the prior information stale, the new information with the old information was probable cause. State v. Winningham, 2013-Ohio-4872, 1 N.E.3d 501 (1st Dist. 2013).
Defendant made no effort to preserve his search issue for appeal via a conditional plea. Therefore, the result of the suppression hearing was considered a part of the plea. Bland v. State, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1651 (November 6, 2013).
Under Florida statute, suspension of a DL for DUI requires a valid stop. Therefore, the driver gets to challenge the stop in the DMV suspension proceedings. Carrizosa v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17597 (Fla. 2d DCA November 6, 2013).
The officer had PC to take defendant in for a breath test. Trial court reversed. State v. Gilbert, 997 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. App. 2013).*
Defendant’s traffic stop was valid. Even if it wasn’t, his crime of evasion was still not subject to suppression. Williams v. State, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 749 (November 5, 2013)* [The Mississippi court website is so bad I’m not even going to try and find this. See for yourself.]
CI’s story was corroborated by his making a controlled buy from the defendant, and the controlled buy was PC for the search warrant. United States v. Mitchner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158520 (D. R.I. November 5, 2013).*
An FBI agent’s car was broken into and a duffle bag with his gun, ID, and wallet was stolen. His CC was shortly used and the police keyed on defendant’s car. When it was found, there was PC to search it for evidence of the break-in and theft. A search of a common storage area at defendant’s apartment was valid because he had no standing. United States v. Rucker, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22491 (8th Cir. November 6, 2013).*
FedEx in Tulsa began opening a suspicious package before the police even got there. It was about opened when they arrived. Private search. United States v. Storey, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158017 (N.D. Okla. November 5, 2013).*
AOL’s computers scan attachments looking for known child pornography hash values, and the information is all reported to NCMEC with the IP addresses. It can lead to opening an investigation. United States v. Keith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158282 (D. Mass. November 5, 2013):
Defendant’s arrest was with PC, and thus the search incident of the cell phone was valid. “See United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405, 411 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that officers may seize cell phones incident to an arrest and retrieve text messages and other information without a search warrant).” United States v. Graves, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22523 (4th Cir. November 6, 2013).*
The city sent plaintiff notice stuff growing in her yard was a nuisance, and she never appealed it. They later came around and seized. Her due process rights were satisfied under a 2004 case in the same circuit, and that’s enough to find the entry reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Morrison v. Cox, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22508 (10th Cir. November 6, 2013).*
There was probable cause to arrest the defendant. The after-acquired information was not considered by the USMJ. United States v. Uriel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158939 (W.D. N.C. November 6, 2013).*
A First Circuit warrantless cell phone search pre-Wurie (United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2013)) violated the Fourth Amendment. “Thus, it is simply inappropriate to analogize cell phones to cigarette packs, purses, and address books; the more apt comparison is to computers.” The Davis good faith exception, however, applies. United States v. Mayo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158866 (D. Vt. November 6, 2013):
|<< <||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)