Defense counsel’s motion to suppress coming during trial at the end of the officer’s testimony wasn’t timely. Brown v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 1014 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) Feb. 3, 2026)* (unpublished).
An automobile exception search can occur at the time of the stop or later. United States v. Douglas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20987 (D. Vt. Feb. 2, 2026).*
Officers did a protective sweep of an apartment after it was shot up, and a M4 magazine was lawfully seen. State v. Hamilton, 2026 Wash. App. LEXIS 177 (Feb. 2, 2026)* (unpublished).
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a water bottle from which DNA was taken left in an interrogation room. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20791 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2026).*
WaPo: Homeland Security is targeting Americans with this secretive legal weapon by John Woodrow Cox (“In October, a retiree emailed a DHS attorney to urge mercy for an asylum seeker. Then DHS subpoenaed his Google account and sent investigators to his home.”) Five hours after he sent the email came the subpoena.
Posted inSubpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters|Comments Off on WaPo: Homeland Security is targeting Americans with this secretive legal weapon
No standing to challenge the stop of a car he wasn’t in or wasn’t his. United States v. Flores-Mendivil, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20776 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2026)*:
The ubiquity of cell phones makes them likely sources of evidence in crimes. Here, there was [at least a slim] nexus to the cell phone and iPad being involved in sending harassing letters. United States v. Goodman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20628 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 2, 2026)*:
The State of Minnesota obtained a search warrant for DHS investigative materials, which was ignored, and then sued DHS over its investigation into the Alex Pretti killing. The District of Minnesota still applies the presumption of regularity and declines to order the federal government gets the benefit of the doubt for now on the standard for injunctive relief for lack of irreparable harm. A continuing preservation order is denied. Minn. Bureau of Apprehension v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20624 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2026):
CNS: 10th Circuit flags ‘Kansas two-step’ traffic cop trick as unconstitutional by Andrew J. Nelson (case posted here) (“A 10th Circuit panel on Thursday found that out-of-state motorists who sued Kansas over a traffic stop tactic have standing, but a federal judge went too far in an injunction that imposed documentation and other requirements. At issue was a tactic used by the Kansas Highway Patrol, where a state trooper turns away from the driver’s door and then turns around and starts talking to the motorist again. This maneuver, sometimes known as ‘the Kansas two-step,’ initiates what law enforcement describes as a voluntary interaction with the trooper — as opposed to the rest of the traffic stop, which is involuntary.”)
Posted inConsent, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CNS: 10th Circuit flags ‘Kansas two-step’ traffic cop trick as unconstitutional
“Dismissal of an indictment is not an appropriate remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Chavez, 705 F.3d 381, 386 (8th Cir. 2013).” It may be for a due process violation. United States v. Pryor, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18893 (D.S.D. Jan. 28, 2026).
Defendant’s motion to suppress was denied as untimely and not on the merits. The appeal doesn’t mention untimeliness, so that’s waiver. State v. Olson, 2026 ND 8 (Jan. 29, 2026).*
This affidavit wasn’t stale and there was plenty of probable cause. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2997 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2026).* [In fact, it was not worth wasting time on. Prepare for trial, not do a losing motion to suppress.]
Posted inMotion to suppress, Staleness, Waiver|Comments Off on D.S.D.: “Dismissal of an indictment is not an appropriate remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation.”
Defendant was driving a car with a fraudulent VIN but claimed he knew nothing about that, having borrowed the car. Other things in the car added to probable cause to believe he was involved in frauds, and that ultimately led to seizure of his cell phones. The 28-day delay in getting a warrant for the phones was not unreasonable “under the particular facts of this case.” Also, defendant didn’t ask for the phones back. United States v. Gordon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 272855 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2025).
“Here, even assuming Hulett did not directly observe a specific traffic violation, the totality of the circumstances supported Hulett’s articulable suspicion—he received notice of a civilian emergency report that Burkhalter’s vehicle was driving erratically and dangerously, and Hulett was able to confirm information from the 911 call when he observed a white truck with a cattle trailer following a white Volvo SUV (matching the caller’s descriptions) in the area. Hulett then observed evasive behavior from Burkhalter when she repeatedly left the roadway after his patrol car pulled up behind her. Thus, Hulett ‘nonetheless had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop [Burkhalter] … whether or not [s]he was [failing to maintain her lane].’” Burkhalter v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 57 (Jan. 30, 2026).*
This is a forfeiture after defendant lost his search claim in his criminal case. The search issue is res judicata or collateral estoppel in the forfeiture. State v. Pitts, 2026-Ohio-292 (6th Dist. Jan. 30, 2026).
Defendant’s superseding indictment raising the stakes at trial wasn’t good cause and didn’t justify defendant’s motion to suppress 12 days before trial after waiting three years and not filing before the last trial aborted during jury selection. The case is no different. [The suppression motion would lose on the merits anyway, but the defense lawyer took the hit here.] United States v. Smith, 4:22-CR-00319-LPR (E.D. Ark. Jan. 31, 2026).*
Defendant rear-ended another car in a construction zone. The officer showed probable cause to believe defendant was under the influence for a BAC blood draw. Moody v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 861 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Jan. 30, 2026).*
While this house was being worked on, the way in was through the garage and door inside there, not the front door. Therefore, police were able to come through the garage to knock. Therefore, no violation of curtilage making the consent invalid. (Defendant was allegedly a mere visitor in the house, but the record was never developed on that, so that’s not decided.) State v. Golberg, 2026 ND 11 (Jan. 29, 2026).
If the LPN check shows the owner’s DL revoked, commonsense is all that’s required to make a stop if he or she is likely driving. It’s usually reasonable to assume the owner is the driver, but not always. United States v. Castillo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17575 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2026).*
Defense summary judgment denied on false arrest claim for DUI. The videos contradict some of the officers’ testimony. There were two asleep in a double-parked car with the engine running. Menard v. City of New York, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 148 (N.Y. Co. Jan. 29, 2026).*
Posted inCurtilage, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on ND: When the main way into a house is through the garage, no violation of curtilage to enter
No qualified immunity for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant. Gibson v. City of Portland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026).
As to Franks: “Even if there were a material omission, inclusion of the information obtained from the administrative subpoena to supplement information from Minor 1 would not destroy probable cause.” As to staleness, information about 2014-2017 in 2024 didn’t make it stale where the government had information about ongoing activities. “The nature of digital evidence weighs against a finding of staleness.” It was also particular. United States v. Burch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17415 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2026).*
The retired officer here was appointed by DPS as a “cattle ranger” under state law to assist in locating stolen cattle. In an interview with defendant, he said he was a law enforcement officer [was he? kinda?]. The court of appeals below held that was a misrepresentation and excluded what he found out interviewing defendant. That was not enough to require suppression under Texas’s art. 38.23. Besides, there was no impersonation. State v. Coleman, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99 (Jan. 29, 2026).*
Luigi Mangione’s backpack was properly searched both as a safety search and an inventory yet incident to his arrest at an Altoona, PA McDonald’s. He was the subject of a multistate manhunt for gunning down an insurance executive in broad daylight in NYC when he was spotted and police rushed to the McDonald’s. United States v. Mangione, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18122 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2026):
Arias v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20726 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2026) [they are detained in Texas]:
Before the Court is the petition of asylum seeker Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son for protection of the Great Writ of habeas corpus. They seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law. The government has responded.
The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children. This Court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported but do so by proper legal procedures.
Apparent also is the government’s ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence. Thirty-three-year-old Thomas Jefferson enumerated grievances against a would-be authoritarian king over our nascent nation. Among others were:
“He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People.”
“He has excited domestic Insurrection among us.”
“For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.”
“He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislatures.”
“We the people” are hearing echos of that history.
And then there is that pesky inconvenience called the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.
U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster. That is called the fox guarding the henhouse. The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Constitution of these United States trumps this administration’s detention of petitioner Adrian Conejo Arias and his minor son, L.C.R. The Great Writ and release from detention are GRANTED pursuant to the attached Judgment.
Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency. And the rule of law be damned.
Ultimately, Petitioners may, because of the arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country, involuntarily or by self-deportation. But that result should occur through a more orderly and humane policy than currently in place.
Philadelphia, September 17, 1787: “Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?” “A republic, if you can keep it.”
With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike, It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 31st day of February [January], 2026.
Posted inImmigration arrests|Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Arias deportation stayed, habeas granted, citing 4A and Declaration of Independence
Plaintiffs, motorists driving between Oklahoma, where marijuana is legal, and Kansas, where it’s not, showed standing with a sufficient likelihood of being stopped again by the state’s own enforcement policy to ‘STOP A LOT OF CARS!’ Shaw v. Smith, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2652 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026):
The officer’s inventory policy was to inventory before towing and then list only that which has value. Things of little value were omitted. Still, his body cam caught it all, so there is a record. This inventory was valid. United States v. McPeters, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17264 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 2026):
NYT: ICE Expands Power of Agents to Arrest People Without Warrants by Hamed Aleaziz & Charlie Savage (“An internal memo changed the standard from whether people are unlikely to show up for hearings to whether they could leave the scene.”) The memo filed in a federal case, and the conclusion. And, with this as the standard, everyone is subjectively an “escape risk.” Where’s the objective test required? In “the law,” wherever that is [which they almost certainly haven’t been trained on, if past is prologue]?:
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on Atlanta Black Star: ‘Make That Make Sense’: Family of Black Girl Frisked, Cuffed and Detained By Michigan Cops Pursuing a 40-Year-Old White Suspect Settles Lawsuit
“Enacted as part of California’s legalization of marijuana, Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4) makes it an infraction to have an ‘open container’ of marijuana in a vehicle. The question before us is whether a small amount of loose marijuana scattered on the rear floor of a car violates that provision. We hold it does not. We further hold that the officers here lacked probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle.” Sellers v. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. LEXIS 269 (Jan. 29, 2026).
This is one of dozens of pretrial detainee cases filed from a county jail alleging various things, one of which was that the judge issuing arrest warrants was not neutral and detached. Dismissed for absolute immunity. Argueta v. Noone, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 272668 (D.S.C. Dec. 30, 2025).*
Defendant was stopped in his own driveway after failing to signal. The officer looked in the windows for others, and he smelled marijuana, saw a little bit, and noticed the door panel had been removed and replaced. He asked defendant, and defendant admitted having a little on him. Now with probable cause, the officer searched the car, finding a gun in the door panel, and defendant was a convicted felon. The search was valid. United States v. Davalos, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2615 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026).*
Defendant was in a stolen car, so no standing at all under Byrd. (The convoluted issue of search incident after Gant with Fourth Circuit authority never revisited is avoided for now.) United States v. Tyson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15809 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2026).
Protective sweep justified the brief warrantless entry into the house. Then the warrant was obtained. United States v. Kent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16593 (W.D. La. Jan. 5, 2026).*
“Thus, by the time of Matusak’s arrest on February 1, 2018, it was clearly established that officers may not use significant force against arrestees who are compliant or non-resistant and non-threatening. While our case law specifically identified pepper spray and tasers as significant force, any reasonable police officer would know that fist and knee strikes to a suspect’s abdomen also constitute significant force. After all, ‘[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.’ Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).” Matusak v. Daminski, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2526 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2026).*
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"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
property."
—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
Amendment."
—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, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"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
"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)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
