13 month old information of possession of a firearm is not stale. “Unlawful possession of a firearm is an ongoing crime, so ‘old’ information is relevant to the question of present probable cause. Additionally, unlike narcotics, firearms are not consumable items; it would be reasonable to believe that Piloto continued to possess his gun in his home for at least 13 months.” There otherwise was probable cause to believe that evidence would be found. United States v. Piloto, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6589 (11th Cir. April 10, 2014).
WaPo: N.Y. search warrant case shows why we need the Exclusionary Rule by Radley Balko:
The rental unit inspection ordinance is not unconstitutional. It provides a warrant procedure if the owner refuses consent. “As the inclusion of the warrant requirement is sufficient to safeguard plaintiff's constitutional rights, his challenge to the facial validity of the [ordinance] must fail ...” Wisoff v. City of Schenectady, 2014 NY Slip Op 2479, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2421 (3d Dept. April 10, 2014).
22 months between viewing and the search warrant in a child pornography case isn’t stale. United States v. Gray, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186916 (D. Minn. December 17, 2013).*
Defendant’s stop at the border checkpoint at MM 58, 20 miles from the Mexican border was valid. It has been in full time operation for 2½ years at the time of the stop. The duffle bag in the backseat looked to the officer to contain bricks of drugs based on the irregular bumps in it. United States v. Garcia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49750 (D. Ariz. March 20, 2014).*
The affidavit for defendant’s BAC in this felony DUI case was order suppressed on appeal because it offered bare conclusions that defendant was the driver of the car. On what was presented to the issuing magistrate, it was completely lacking. Snell v. State, 2014 WY 46, 2014 Wyo. LEXIS 49 (April 9, 2014).
Defendant was stopped for texting while driving because he wandered out of his lane. The officer found him under the influence and arrested him. A valid inventory produced a pipe and marijuana. United States v. Wingle, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6596 (4th Cir. April 10, 2014).*
2255 petitioner’s conclusory allegation that the Fourth Amendment was violated by the police was insufficient to show that his plea should be set aside. United States v. Mulder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49552 (S.D. Tex. April 10, 2014).*
A CI called police and said that he could by crack from a man with tattoos on his face. They set up a controlled buy out of defendant’s house. That was probable cause for a search warrant. State v. Young, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 966 (La. App. 5 Cir. April 9, 2014).*
Defendant’s obvious hand-to-hand drug transaction supported his stop. State v. Whye, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 185 (April 9, 2014).*
Defendant’s cotenant consented to a search that revealed a sledgehammer used to break into a building. His reliance on Randolph is off the mark because he didn’t veto consent; Fernandez holds consent still valid. State v. Percy, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 987 (La.App. 2 Cir. April 9, 2014).*
Defendant was found to have abandoned his sweatshorts which had a gun in the pocket. United States v. Mosley, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6500 (10th Cir. April 9, 2014).*
Officers told defendant they wanted to search his cell phone for sexually explicit photographs, and he was found to have consented. United States v. Rounds, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6545 (5th Cir. April 9, 2014).*
Pro se 2255 petitioner’s claim that state officers conducting a search can’t have that case prosecuted in federal court is utterly without merit. United States v. Jackson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49100 (W.D. Ark. January 30, 2014).*
Plaintiff prison inmate filed a “§ 1983 complaint in which he contended that he was forced to undergo strip and visual body cavity searches without reasonable justification.” He stated a Fourth Amendment claim so reversed and remanded. Scheidel v. Sec'y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6534 (5th Cir. April 9, 2014).
Officers approached a vehicle illegally parked in front of a drug house, and they could lawfully order the occupants out of the car. The search of the passenger compartment was justified either by probable cause under the automobile exception and fear of a weapon. United States v. Neria, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48832 (N.D. Tex. April 9, 2014).*
Information in the SW affidavit that defendant was bringing drugs to a sale point from his house was nexus for a search warrant for the house. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48843 (W.D. Pa. April 9, 2014).*
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)