NY: 911 call that “I’ve just been shot” with a description of the car was RS

911 call that “I’ve just been shot” with a description of the car was reasonable suspicion. People v. Leighton R., 2025 NY Slip Op 06534, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 1946 (Nov. 25, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY: 911 call that “I’ve just been shot” with a description of the car was RS

D.D.C.: Use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial

The use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial. United States v. Blythe, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231852 (D.D.C. Nov. 23, 2025) (interesting read).

Just because defense counsel didn’t appeal a losing Fourth Amendment issue doesn’t make counsel ineffective. Scales v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231972 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2025).*

The child pornography warrant here was particular and based on probable cause. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Githens, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231954 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025).*

The CI’s information was meager at best, and there was no corroboration. Moreover, defendant’s Franks showing is sufficient to get a hearing. Remanded. United States v. Felton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025).*

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Privileges | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Use of biometrics to access a cell phone is not testimonial

Above the Law: Washington Post Analysis Shows We Are Talking Too Much And Getting Questionable Advice From LLMs — And It May All Be Discoverable [How about the subject of a search warrant?]

Above the Law: Washington Post Analysis Shows We Are Talking Too Much And Getting Questionable Advice From LLMs — And It May All Be Discoverable by Stephen Embry (“It’s incumbent on all of us to do all we can to make ordinary people aware of the dangers.”) (WaPo article here.) Remember back to the early days of internet searches being found on a computer? Things like how to cut up a body or commit a crime or a crime to do list.

Warrants for search histories have happened. More informative will be AI questions and responses.

Posted in Computer and cloud searches | Comments Off on Above the Law: Washington Post Analysis Shows We Are Talking Too Much And Getting Questionable Advice From LLMs — And It May All Be Discoverable [How about the subject of a search warrant?]

OH6: Def’s medical records from hospital required SW not GJ subpoena

Defendant’s hospital records were obtained by grand jury subpoena. He moved to suppress claiming that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant was required. The court agrees, rejecting numerous arguments from the state. In addition, the court holds that these records are not mere third-party records. Finally, the good faith exception does not apply. State v. Russell, 2025-Ohio-5306, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 4012 (6th Dist. Nov. 25, 2025) (so this begs the question of whether the state can now just get a warrant and get them again?):

Continue reading
Posted in Good faith exception, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on OH6: Def’s medical records from hospital required SW not GJ subpoena

VA: Second frisk was still with RS

Defendant’s second frisk was valid, despite a prior frisk not finding anything. “We have no doubt that the situation here presented such circumstances, on the heels of a possible armed robbery with suspects on the scene and the whereabouts of a gun unknown. Hollingsworth rightly does not dispute the reasonableness of the initial stop and frisk of him for weapons. He challenges only the second pat down as unjustified. He contends the police had no new information and only a ‘hunch’ that he had a firearm, based on the fact that he declined to be frisked a second time and the officers had not found a firearm anywhere else they looked. We disagree.” Hollingsworth v. Commonwealth, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 729 (Nov. 25, 2025).

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia has standing to challenge a subpoena for patient records in a DoJ request for medical records. “We must determine whether the Hospital has constitutional standing to object to disclosing its child-patients’ identities and medical information. We find the Hospital enjoys standing.” In re Subpoena, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229056 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2025).*

Defendant’s claim that CSLI case law should be applied retroactively was abandoned on appeal. Maner v. Comm’r of Corr., 2025 Conn. App. LEXIS 365 (Nov. 25, 2025).* (not that it would have succeeded).

Posted in Cell site location information, Privileges, Standing, Stop and frisk, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on VA: Second frisk was still with RS

Malwarebytes: What the Flock is happening with license plate readers?

Malwarebytes: What the Flock is happening with license plate readers? by Matt Burgess:

Continue reading
Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on Malwarebytes: What the Flock is happening with license plate readers?

The Intercept: The FBI Wants AI Surveillance Drones With Facial Recognition

The Intercept: The FBI Wants AI Surveillance Drones With Facial Recognition (“The FBI is looking for ways to incorporate artificial intelligence into drones, according to federal procurement documents. On Thursday, the FBI put out the call to potential vendors of AI and machine learning technology to be used in unmanned aerial systems in a so-called ‘request for information,’ where government agencies request companies submit initial information for a forthcoming contract opportunity. The FBI is in search of technology that could enable drones to conduct facial recognition, license plate recognition, and detection of weapons, among other uses, according to the document.”)

Posted in Drones, Facial recognition | Comments Off on The Intercept: The FBI Wants AI Surveillance Drones With Facial Recognition

E.D.Ky.: Fact drug dog wasn’t trained on fentanyl wasn’t defect when he alerted on it and cocaine

The drug dog wasn’t trained on fentanyl but alerted on it. It was trained on cocaine and did alert on it. That doesn’t make the dog unreliable. After probable cause developed, using the key fob to open the car wasn’t unreasonable. United States v. Newby, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228470 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2025), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227442 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 18, 2025).

The good faith exception was litigated in state court. On habeas, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not, essentially, arguing it better. In re Hale, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229786 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2025).*

The omitted facts don’t undermine probable cause under Franks, and defendant doesn’t overcome the presumption of validity of the warrant. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229334 (M.D. La. Nov. 21, 2025).*

Defendant’s cell phone search issue is harmless error if error at all. People v. Brown, 2025 NY Slip Op 06409 (4th Dept. Nov. 23, 2025)* (he gets re-sentencing, however; the conviction date is three weeks short of five years from the appellate decision, and that’s just appalling).

Posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Fact drug dog wasn’t trained on fentanyl wasn’t defect when he alerted on it and cocaine

MD: State’s failure to litigate standing at suppression hearing is waiver

The state’s failure to litigate standing at the suppression hearing is its waiver. On the merits, the information failed to show probable cause via collective knowledge. Seizure of bloody clothing in a bag in the hallway outside the ER was unreasonable because it was moved there by the police in the first place. Plain view doesn’t apply. Martin v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 1001 (Nov. 21, 2025).

Prolonged detention of a detained immigrant is analyzed under the due process clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Rashid v. Trump, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229752 (D. Vt. Oct. 27, 2025).*

The officer here walked up to defendant’s parked car and saw a meth pipe. That was not unlawful. State v. Celaya, 2025-Ohio-5246 (2d Dist. Nov. 21, 2025).*

Defendant was arrested in Kentucky for an Ohio murder. The search of his car in Kentucky was with probable cause and a warrant wasn’t required. The attack on the warrant is moot. State v. Smothers, 2025-Ohio-5250 (1st Dist. Nov. 21, 2025).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing, Waiver | Comments Off on MD: State’s failure to litigate standing at suppression hearing is waiver

CA6: Even if SW was issued without PC, it was still in good faith

Even if the warrant here was lacking probable cause, it was obtained and executed in good faith, so the suppression order is reversed. United States v. Tanzil, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30653 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2025)*:

Continue reading
Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA6: Even if SW was issued without PC, it was still in good faith

NV citizen’s arrest requires crime occur in arrestor’s presence

Defendant entered making a citizen’s arrest for a crime that did not occur in his presence. His conviction is affirmed because that’s a statutory requirement. The knock-and-announce requirement in the statute also serves an important purpose in citizen’s arrest. Ser v. State, 2025 Nev. LEXIS 65 (Nov. 20, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Knock and announce | Comments Off on NV citizen’s arrest requires crime occur in arrestor’s presence

M.D.Fla.: No REP against ALPR tracking LPN information

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy against ALPR tracking of a car. It’s not at all like Carpenter’s CSLI. United States v. Floyd, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229044 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: No REP against ALPR tracking LPN information

Five on habeas

The district court granted a limited CoA in this 2254 appeal. Petitioner doesn’t get to expand it to a consensual recording issue [that is frivolous]. Sontay v. Heidle, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30613 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*

2241 petitioner’s habeas petition was filed while his case was pending in state court so it’s barred by Younger. Also, the Fourth Amendment claim is frivolous and parallels § 1983 claims already rejected from the same jail. And it doesn’t work in habeas. Jeffries v. Bodiford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228670 (D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2025).*

To prevail in a habeas Fourth Amendment claim, petitioner must plead and prove his or her inability to pursue a state claim. Williams v. Tinsley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228668 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2025).*

2254 petitioner doesn’t get a CoA on GPS issue somehow relating to a DNA sample taken by search warrant where the affidavit never mentioned the GPS. Burdick v. Bousch, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30621 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*

No CoA on petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim rejected both under Stone and on the merits. Smith v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30629 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025).*

Posted in Issue preclusion | Comments Off on Five on habeas

CA6: Zoning officer’s attempting to post a stop work order was not a seizure of real property

Defendant had no constitutional right to build a greenhouse in his front yard in violation of a city zoning ordinance, and the zoning official did not seize his property by attempting to post a stop work order on it. “While the stop work order apprised Lamb that the construction violated the Township’s ordinances, it didn’t meaningfully interfere with his possession of his property. That’s because Lamb kept possession of the partially built greenhouse even after Crofoot posted the stop work order—the greenhouse remained on his front yard. And Lamb retained possession of the material used to construct the greenhouse after taking it apart. In short, Crofoot never seized the greenhouse or any part of it.” Lamb v. Crofoot, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30453 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).

“[Probable cause] is ‘not a difficult standard to meet.’ … Therefore, in the search warrant context, ‘it follows that a warrant’s validity should not turn on whether it is supported by an “actual showing” of criminal activity at the targeted location,’ but on ‘whether officers provided direct or circumstantial support to create “more than mere suspicion” that contraband will be found at the location in question.’ … This analysis is ‘holistic,’ … and requires courts to focus on the ‘totality of the circumstances’ rather than scrutinizing an affidavit in a ‘hypertechnical’ or ‘line-by-line’ manner …” United States v. Hawkins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30456 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

“The Court concludes, however, that the September 5, 2025, tracking warrant was supported by probable cause because there was a substantial basis to believe that the phone tracker warrant would uncover evidence of criminal activity. The affidavit provided strong evidence that the phone number ending in -3974 was used for drug trafficking. …” United States v. Aguilar, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228944 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2025).*

Posted in Probable cause, Seizure, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on CA6: Zoning officer’s attempting to post a stop work order was not a seizure of real property

N.D.Ill.: ICE may be seeking to cause confrontations as an excuse to use force

Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25 C 12173 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2025) (233 pages). Just as to driving:

Continue reading
Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: ICE may be seeking to cause confrontations as an excuse to use force

D.Mass.: “All records” relating to wire fraud was particular enough

“The warrant here, and, specifically, the attachment describing the items to be seized, satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. Kerrissey argues, first, that the attachment was overbroad because it authorized the seizure of ‘“all records, in whatever form” for multiple businesses without any temporal limitation.’ … This argument ignores the plain language of the warrant, which limited the records to be seized to violations of a certain statute during a defined time period, that is ‘evidence, fruits, or instrumentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. [§] 1343’ from ‘April 2020 until the present.’ … Contrary to Kerrissey’s argument, the Court must read this ‘broad first clause, which identifie[d] the criminal offense[] that the target evidence was expected to establish’ in light of the more ‘detailed and particularized’ subclauses that follow, whose particularity Kerrissey does not specifically challenge.” United States v. Kerrissey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228510 (D. Mass. Nov. 20, 2025).

An officer who provided information leading to a probable cause determination that has buyer’s remorse later doesn’t undo the probable cause finding. Jackson v. Dickens, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228646 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 20, 2025).*

Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Mass.: “All records” relating to wire fraud was particular enough

OH5: Pleading guilty without seeing SW materials stated enough to get post-conviction hearing

The state’s plea offer was to plead without getting any discovery. Defendant adequately pled defense counsel was ineffective for counseling this, including waiving getting access to the search warrant materials. The trial court erred in denying a hearing. State v. Simpson, 2025-Ohio-5240, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3975 (5th Dist. Nov. 19, 2025).

The USMJ found there was reasonable suspicion for the probation search based on the CI’s information. Defendant’s only complaint is that the CI was biased. Adopted. United States v. German, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228755 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2025).*

“Mr. Morales’s generic descriptions of the Fourth Amendment, see ECF No. 1, at 3-4, are not sufficient to raise a justiciable claim, as this court ‘lacks Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate an abstract and undefined Fourth Amendment claim,’ Maye Torrez, 2025 WL 1897824, at 2.” Morales v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228699 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH5: Pleading guilty without seeing SW materials stated enough to get post-conviction hearing

VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

The exclusionary rule, along with a host of other things, doesn’t apply in revocation proceedings. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2025 Va. LEXIS 57 (Nov. 20, 2025) (citing treatise § 9.16).

The collective knowledge doctrine applies to traffic stops. United States v. Frantz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226259 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 18, 2025).*

“On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test …. The general allegation that the informant was ‘aware that narcotics are kept inside the location’ provides no indication ‘that the information was based upon personal observation’ …. Likewise, the informant’s statement that at some unidentified point in time the informant had conducted a narcotics transaction at that address ‘did not describe defendant’s activities with sufficient particularity to warrant an inference of personal knowledge’ … Nor was the information conveyed by the informant corroborated by police observation …. Accordingly, the informant’s statements fail to meet the requirements of Aguilar-Spinelli and, because there are no other allegations in the search warrant affidavit to establish ‘a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that evidence of a crime may’ have been found at 205 Curtis Street …, the search warrant for that address was not supported by probable cause, and the evidence seized there should have been suppressed.” People v. Berry, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 1911 (Nov. 20, 2025).*

Posted in Collective knowledge, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

Reason: Lindsey Graham Is Outraged About Federal Surveillance Powers That Lindsey Graham Helped Create and Expand

Reason: Lindsey Graham Is Outraged About Federal Surveillance Powers That Lindsey Graham Helped Create and Expand by Eric Boehm (“Graham is incensed that his phone records were subpoenaed by federal prosecutors—without his knowledge—as part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s role in the January 6 riot. He’s accused the FBI of spying on him, and this week wrote a letter demanding the suspension and impeachment of federal Judge James Boasberg, who approved that subpoena and related gag order. In an interview on Fox News, Graham threatened to sue someone (it’s unclear who, exactly) for ‘tens of millions of dollars’ over all this … Graham has been a key player in the construction of America’s modern digital and telecom panopticon. As a member of the House, he voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. After Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was scooping up Americans’ phone records, Graham said he was ‘glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country.’ (He later tried to place sanctions on any country aiding Snowden.) He voted to codify those surveillance powers into Section 702 in 2008 and has repeatedly backed its preauthorization.”).

Posted in FISA, National security | Comments Off on Reason: Lindsey Graham Is Outraged About Federal Surveillance Powers That Lindsey Graham Helped Create and Expand

LAT: ICE is grabbing U.S. citizens, defying its own rules and the Constitution

And Justice Kavanagh said this wouldn’t happen:

LAT: ICE is grabbing U.S. citizens, defying its own rules and the Constitution by Raul A. Reyes:

Continue reading
Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on LAT: ICE is grabbing U.S. citizens, defying its own rules and the Constitution