Defendant’s consent to search his phone was merely acquiescing to a claim of lawful authority because it was told if he consented he could get it back faster. State v. Seem, 2022-Ohio-3507, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3314 (6th Dist. Sep. 30, 2022).
Defendant’s plain error 2255 fails. The subjective intent of the officer to stop him isn’t a factor when there was, as here, an objective cause. United States v. Ingram, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178682 (W.D. Okla. Sep. 30, 2022).*
Defendant was driving without a license, and his passenger didn’t have one either. The officer could order impoundment of the car and that means inventory. State v. Matheny, 2022-Ohio-3447, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3295 (5th Dist. Sep. 28, 2022).*
Plaintiff’s unarmed decedent was shot and killed by the St. Louis PD SWAT team in a no-knock drug raid of the wrong house. Plaintiff stated a claim that the affidavit for search warrant omitted critical facts that undermined probable cause. (Plaintiff also alleged some officer planted drugs to attempt to justify the search.) The warrant provided for no-knock because they all do. Plaintiff, however, stated a failure to train claim against the city because there was no justification for a no-knock with a flashbang at the time of execution. Clark v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178774 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 30, 2022).* (This is just a horrible case on its facts: A man asleep in his own house, unarmed, shot to death when the flashbang woke him up. They also are alleged to have knowingly let him bleed out before calling an ambulance.):
The information in a drug search warrant was six months old. No reasonable officer would believe it showed probable cause, despite a magistrate signing off on it. It is “so lacking” in its showing that the good faith exception does not apply. United States v. Suong, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178494 (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2022).
Being ordered out of one’s car during a traffic stop is not unreasonable. United States v. Pullen, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178249 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2022).*
Defendants were convicted of wire fraud involving pharmaceutical returns. The search warrant here was issued in 2011 for information found on computers which the defendants already told the government it had all the pertinent records. The records sought were found on a hard drive, and the warrant was sufficiently particular. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. There was also a 2014 warrant involved in the suppression hearing, and it isn’t discussed on appeal, so it is abandoned. United States v. Fallon, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27404 (3d Cir. Sep. 30, 2022).* When the government can show a reason to go back after execution of a warrant, there’s no reason they can’t get another if they can show probable cause.
Under the inventory policy, the police had the discretion to impound vehicles with excessive window tint, even though they did not apply impoundment uniformly. State v. Hall-Johnson, 2022-Ohio-3512, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3308 (10th Dist. Sep. 30, 2022).
An investigation is not a search, so a police department does not need to show reasonable suspicion to start an internal investigation. And, even if there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the investigation, the exclusionary rule does not apply to police discipline proceedings. Scatchell v. Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners for Melrose Park, 2022 IL App (1st) 201361, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 423 (Sep. 30, 2022).
Police got a search warrant for defendant’s cell phone in a murder investigation, and they recovered a Google search request for “how do you suffocate?” “Accordingly, we reject defendant’s fourth amendment argument and conclude the officers involved in the underlying encounter did not make a show of authority which would cause a reasonable person not to feel free to leave. … In addition, because we find the reenactment was consensual at the outset and did not implicate the fourth amendment, it cannot be said defendant’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise this argument in his motion to suppress evidence.” People v. Logan, 2022 IL App (4th) 210492, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 424 (Sep. 30, 2022).*
Franks claim fails for failure to show how the alleged false statements undermined the probable cause. “The defendant failed to meet his burden of controverting the warrant, as he failed to analyze, must less establish, that after the excise of allegedly offending statements in the officer’s affidavit, the remaining content was insufficient to establish probable cause.” People v. Biggs, 2022 NY Slip Op 05328, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5226 (2d Dept. Sep. 28, 2022).
The anonymous tip here wasn’t able to be corroborated in its suggestion of crime, and thus lacked reasonable suspicion. State v. Barclift, 2022 ME 50, 2022 Me. LEXIS 52 (Sep. 27, 2022).
Defendant’s stop after a “disturbance” call was with reasonable suspicion. Coleman v. State, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 321 (Sep. 29, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop, and his failure to identify himself was probable cause of obstruction. The search incident that followed was reasonable. State v. Hargrove, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1683 (La. App. 3 Cir. Sep. 28, 2022).*
A Gant search incident of a vehicle authorized for open containers of alcohol didn’t permit a more intense search of a plastic “otter box” finding PCP. Smith v. United States, 2022 D.C. App. LEXIS 326 (Sep. 29, 2022).
The state constitution provides more protection of individual privacy than the Fourth Amendment. The probation and parole officer’s warrantless search of his cell phone was unreasonable under the state constitution. State v. Mefford, 2022 MT 185, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 896 (Sep. 27, 2022).
The search incident of defendant went to his sock where drugs were found. His perfunctory argument doesn’t develop anything to consider. The trial court’s decision as to his statements on the street are suppressed, however. Williams v. United States, 2022 D.C. App. LEXIS 325 (Sep. 29, 2022).
The officer’s questions about travel plans were not an unreasonable extension of a traffic stop. United States v. Turner, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27280 (11th Cir. Sep. 29, 2022).
Officers approaching defendant’s car where he was asleep was not a seizure until he was actually seized. Drugs were inside the car in plain view. United States v. Roberson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175905 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 28, 2022).*
This 2255 has an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to effectively litigate a Playpen warrant that would have never succeeded anyway. Relief denied. Barnes v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176400 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 28, 2022).*
Defendant was driving a white Corvette and he allegedly was involved in a road rage incident with occupants of a landscaping truck where he flashed a gun. An APB was put out for him, and he was stopped the next day. There was probable cause for a search incident for the firearm. United States v. Mulkern, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27031 (1st Cir. Sep. 27, 2022).
The City of Chicago’s policy that property brought to book-in at the jail has to be reclaimed within 30 days or it is treated as abandoned satisfies the due process clause. Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27190 (7th Cir. Sep. 28, 2022).
Defendant’s request to file an out of time objection to the R&R is denied. He can’t win anyway. United States v. Bradley, No. 18-03073-03-CR-S-BP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174574 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 27, 2022).*
Failure to mention in a warrant application that the CI was getting leniency is not a Franks violation. (It’s practically common knowledge they probably are.) Robinson v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174791 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 27, 2022):
The search warrant here was for three separate locations which is not per se unreasonable. However, the probable cause showing was lacking because it was based on mere suspicion that a firearm was in one of three possible places. The showing was invalid on its face. El Pueblo de P.R. v. Corchado, 2022 TSPR 114, 2022 PR Sup. Lexis 119 (P.R. Sep. 16, 2022):
Lack of consent is no defense to a probation search. United States v. Lombardo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173618 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2022).*
Defendant was detained after furtive gestures. He ultimately voluntarily spoke to the officers. There was no constitutional violation for the exclusionary rule to apply to. United States v. Devaisher, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173414 (S.D. Ill. Sep. 23, 2022).*
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that under the facts here, the officers’ incremental and combined use of a baton, a canine, and a taser violated clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would have known. The undisputed facts of the case showed that plaintiff threatened the officers and actively resisted their efforts to subdue and secure him. That’s at least qualified immunity. McKinney v. City of Middletown, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26863 (2d Cir. Sep. 26, 2022).*
Defendant opened a safe for the officers. His wife said that it was hers and she had it before they were married. Defendant didn’t even argue he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the safe. Therefore, he didn’t show standing. State v. Grondin, 2022-Ohio-3366, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3163 (9th Dist. Sep. 26, 2022).
Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in executing an arrest warrant in a house. Defendant was arrested outside, and another they knew was inside. The entry was valid. United States v. Grushko, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26754 (11th Cir. Sep. 23, 2022).
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality. Defendant was driving in a high-crime area and made apparent evasive measures when seeing the police, among other things. United States v. Brown, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173239 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 26, 2022).*
“The Court will not interfere with the Government’s review of the laptop pursuant to a search warrant obtained from a different Court — except to require the Government to submit a status update no later than October 28, 2022. As for the conditions and restrictions proposed by the Government with respect to a replacement laptop, Defendant has the choice: to accept those conditions and restrictions or to wait until the Government’s review has been completed (and accept that that will delay preparation and adjudication of his post-trial motions). Even with those conditions and restrictions, providing a laptop to Defendant goes far beyond what the law requires for any defendant – let alone a defendant who has been convicted of various computer-related offenses and may well have violated prior Court orders with respect to the use of the laptop given to him to prepare for trial.” United States v. Schulte, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172966 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2022).*
The only testimony in the record was that which was credited by the trial court on the motion to suppress: Defendant was weaving, and that supported the stop. State v. Bradley, 2022-Ohio-3352, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3160 (6th Dist. Sep. 23, 2022).*
Defense counsel didn’t file a motion to suppress. It would have been denied if he did. That’s not ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Loper, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 383 (Sep. 21, 2022).*
In a hearing on alleged juror misconduct, the district court cannot order the juror’s cell phone to be searched for evidence of what happened. In re Sittenfeld, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26700 (6th Cir. Sep. 23, 2022).
Plaintiff’s complaint against prosecutors for aiding law enforcement to get search warrants for their business that ultimately failed in the state appeal fails. They are absolutely immune for seeking search warrants. On other claims, the prosecutors have qualified immunity, and there is no claim of supervisory liability that they guided the investigation. A Franks claim also fails for lack of materiality. There was probable cause on the whole. Captain Jack’s Crab Shack, Inc. v. Cooke, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26523 (11th Cir. Sep. 22, 2022).
But for causation does not apply to the statutory immunity for drug overdose calls for help. “[H]ere, there was an outstanding warrant for Mr. Waiters’ arrest. And it was this existing circumstance that led to the discovery of the contraband, not the effort to seek medical assistance.” That’s the independent source doctrine at work here. State v. Waiters, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 6451 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep. 23, 2022).
“While we hold that a protective sweep does not require a prior arrest, we conclude that the district court correctly concluded that the search performed here was not a lawful protective sweep because it was not based on articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that the premises harbored a dangerous individual. The district court’s order, however, did not indicate the specific evidence that was improperly seized as a result of the protective sweep or as its fruit. Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for the district court to clarify the evidence that falls within the purview of the suppression order and which items were permissibly seized by law enforcement.” State v. McCall, 2022 Nev. LEXIS 61 (Sep. 22, 2022).
The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on pro se plaintiff’s claim they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. There was at least reasonable suspicion for this parole search. Corradi v. N.J. State Parole Bd., No. U.S. App. LEXIS 26695 (3d Cir. Sep. 23, 2022).*
“Here, White does not offer persuasive evidence that the affidavit had omissions, lies, or misstatements that were recklessly or intentionally made. In fact, White does not contend that statements in the affidavit are necessarily false. White only contends that the veracity or reliability of the ‘source’ who gave Investigator Purvis the information, which was used in the affidavit for the search warrant, is questionable because no information is provided about the informant. (Doc, 29, at 4). Otherwise, White has not alleged that Investigator Purvis has manufactured the informant, lied about the informant, or that Investigator Purvis should have known that informant was lying.” This is not a Franks claim. United States v. White, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171974 (M.D. Ga. Sep. 22, 2022).*
Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment about a search issue underlying a criminal investigation. The district court dismissed because there was a remedy in the investigation, if it gets that far. Affirmed. Hawk Innovative Tech, LLC v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26520 (11th Cir. Sep. 22, 2022):
Defendant was lawfully stopped for a traffic offense. He claimed he needed an ambulance and one was called for him. While the EMTs were attending to him the officer started on his report of the stop. He asked defendant for consent and he did: “‘Hey Sergio, do you mind if I search your car real quick to make sure there is nothing in it?’ Galindo responded, ‘Um, I don’t mind. It’s Stephanie’s car. She gave it to me this morning.’” This stop was not unlawfully extended under Rodriguez. State v. Galindo, 2022 Ida. App. LEXIS 17 (Sep. 22, 2022).
“Allee’s conduct involved possessing and distributing cocaine—a Schedule II controlled substance—and possessing a short-barreled shotgun in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes. Upon execution of a search warrant, law enforcement discovered a large amount of stolen property as well as multiple firearms at his residence. His conduct posed a substantial risk of harm to the public. The nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense weigh against compassionate release.” United States v. Allee, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170772 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2022).*
Defendant was driving the wrong way on a one-way street, and within one minute there was a plain view of marijuana. United States v. Coleman, No. 1:22CR64, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171040 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 21, 2022).*
Officers observed two traffic violations and stopped him at gas pumps. An old arrest warrant surfaced. Leaving the car at the gas pump was not reasonable–it could be towed and inventoried. United States v. Walker, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26405 (5th Cir. Sep. 21, 2022).
What proved to be a false positive field test for drugs in a CBP stopped shipment that ended up in a search warrant affidavit was not a Franks violation. The search produced other evidence of crime. United States v. Hunt, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170910 (D. Neb. Sep. 21, 2022).
Driving suspiciously in the parking lot of closed businesses in the early hours of Thanksgiving morning with other things. United States v. Helton, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170553 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 21, 2022).*
Defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars is denied. The 66 page affidavit for the search warrant sets out the government’s whole case. United States v. Castro, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170485 (D. Nev. Sep. 20, 2022).