The informant’s lie to get into defendant’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210 (1966). United States v. Warick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15538 (6th Cir. May 28, 2026).
“The Dash Cam and Body Cam video reflect that Officer App requested a K9 officer and back-up units after observing the two cell phones and the cash scattered on the front passenger seat of Mr. Jordan’s vehicle under a bag. When requesting backup, Officer App also mentioned to the dispatcher Mr. Jordan’s prior convictions for being a serious violent felon, possession of narcotics and machine guns, and dealing drugs, which he had learned of when he performed a search on Indiana MyCase. When another officer arrived on the scene, Officer App told him ‘he’s got quite a bit of currency in the front passenger seat and he has two phones. That’s enough for me to get a dog.’ [Body Cam at 07:10-07:20.]” United States v. Jordan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117671 (S.D. Ind. May 28, 2026).*
Reasonable suspicion developed after the stop, and that justified extending it. United States v. Mitchell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117454 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2026).*
Posted inInformant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA6: CI’s lie to get into def’s house to video him making a drug deal with the CI didn’t violate 4A
“In this case, the evidence was that, although the Defendant lived in the van, the van was registered to someone else, and the vehicle registration indicated the same. The doors to the van were wide open and it was parked in a public lot. Thus, the trial court ruled that the Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in the vehicle and, therefore, lacked standing to challenge the search of the van and the seizure of the items found inside.” State v. Rodgers, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 315 (May 26, 2026).*
The warrant affidavit mentioned gun parts and a 3D printer shipped to defendant’s place. “Defendant next asserts that the search warrant application failed to establish a nexus between any criminal activity and the Target Location. Specifically, defendant suggests that it is ‘a leap of conjecture’ to assume that gun parts and the 3D printer, all of which were shipped to the Target Location, would be found therein. The Court is underwhelmed.” United States v. Butland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118932 (D. Mass. May 29, 2026).*
Defendant’s Franks affidavit seeking to justify a hearing that he denies what the officer said in the affidavit for warrant is not a “substantial preliminary showing” under First Circuit precedent. This is essentially an effort at cross-examination. United States v. Rivera-Fernández, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118989 (D.P.R. May 27, 2026).*
The suppression of the cell phone is affirmed. The telephonic warrant omitted to mention what it was that the police were seizing. The ubiquity of cell phones isn’t carte blanche to seize any cell phone in a defendant’s possession. There has to be nexus between it and the offense being investigated, and that’s not shown here. People v. Matthew, 2026 VI 9 (May 28, 2026).
Defendant was a passenger in a car lawfully stopped. He has standing to challenge his stop, but not that of the others, and he has standing to the seizure of his cell phone, not the other five found in the car. United States v. Arnold, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (6th Cir. May 29, 2026).*
The warrant for records is claimed to be overbroad, but it’s limited by the crimes under investigation. United States v. Andrixon, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118482 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2026).*
Defendant’s stop for a license plate frame that covered part of the LPN was reasonable. Shining a flashlight into the car the officer thought he saw a baggie of drugs, and that was reasonable suspicion to call for a drug dog. People v. Brooks, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 854 (Tomkins Co. May 29, 2026).*
Posted inCell phones, Nexus|Comments Off on VI: Despite ubiquity of cell phones, nexus has to be shown to alleged crime
A PIT maneuver here was not excessive force. Defendant repeatedly refused to stop and even after attempted PIT maneuvers kept fleeing. United States v. Damons, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118141 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 2, 2026):
The juvenile here acted like he was carrying a weapon and he had on a ski mask in June in New Orleans. That was reasonable suspicion. State In the Int. of L.V., 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1070 (La. App. 4 Cir May 28, 2026).*
The warrant application had a false statement in it, but it wasn’t material to the probable cause finding. United States v. Jamea, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15365 (3d Cir. May 29, 2026).*
The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in immigration proceedings. Zamacona v. Blanche, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15416 (9th Cir. May 27, 2026).*
Defense counsel challenged the method by which the government obtained financial records, allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was all waived by his guilty plea. United States v. Deloe, 2026 CCA LEXIS 253 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 29, 2026).*
Lifetime SORNA registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable here because defendant’s victim was under 13. People v. Vandermel, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4464 (May 28, 2026).*
On a successor habeas: “Here, the ground Mack raises in his instant application was raised in his original § 2254 petition and thus is barred by § 2244(b)(1)’s same-claims bar. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). In his application, Mack raises the same ground as his original § 2254 petition: his convictions were unconstitutional and he is actually innocent because probable cause for his arrest warrant was supported by text messages that did not exist, and his convictions thus should be vacated since he would not have pleaded guilty but for the perjured testimony in the warrant. … To the extent that he has made new arguments in his application pertaining to this claim, that is insufficient to create a new claim. … Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mack’s application. …” In re Mack, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15359 (11th Cir. May 28, 2026).*
While the traffic ticket for tinting was being written, a nearby officer with a drug dog showed up for a sniff, and this didn’t extend the stop. Moss v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 260 (May 29, 2026).*
Project Veritas sued over sealed search warrant materials, and it’s been four years since the warrants. There’s a public interest in disclosure, and the government shall file in camera proposed redactions of the materials. Generalized claims of law enforcement need do not suffice. In re Search Warrant Dated Nov. 5, 2021, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118739 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2026). Similar are United States v. Palmer, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119497 (D. Kan. Apr. 27, 2026), and Atty. Gen. v. Bianco S.C., 2026 Cal. LEXIS 2384 (Apr. 8, 2026), both on Lexis on the same day.
The information in the warrant affidavit collectively show probable cause. “But, the search warrant affidavit here is supported by more than unsupported confidential source information. And those confidential sources upon which the affidavit relies were witnesses to the underlying crime itself.” [Picking at them one by one doesn’t satisfy the totality standard.] United States v. Combs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118698 (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2026).*
“Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim is based on the City’s ‘threats to inspect the hotel without a warrant or consent.’ The Fourth Amendment ‘protects two types of expectations, one involving “searches,” the other “seizures.”’ … Plaintiffs allege no facts that show any imminent ‘threat’ to inspect their property without consent or a warrant. Rather, their only specific allegation is that the City ‘demanded’ permission to inspect the property at issue, which necessarily required Plaintiffs’ consent. These allegations are insufficient to support a Fourth Amendment claim.” Verge v. City of L.A., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15413 (9th Cir. May 27, 2026).*
In a qualified immunity order, the court decides to submit underlying fact questions to the jury to decide it. Steelman v. City of Shannon Hills, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118665 (E.D. Ark. May 29, 2026).
2255 petitioner’s claim about his counsel’s ineffective assistance on the search warrant claim is belied by the record. It was litigated before conviction and appealed. United States v. Pratt, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118691 (N.D.N.Y. May 29, 2026).*
The trial court’s findings and suppression that the warrant here was based in part on an unlawful entry is affirmed. Forbes ex rel. State v. McLaughlin, 2026 W. Va. LEXIS 255 (May 29, 2026).*
By the time of defendant’s stop, the police already knew he was involved in hand-to-hand drug transactions, and that was reasonable suspicion to extend it. United States v. Hawkins, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118570 (E.D. Va. May 28, 2026).*
Despite the lack of a Miranda warning, defendant consented to the search. After all, she’d been arrested about 20 times before this one. United States v. Marr, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15161 (8th Cir. May 28, 2026).
A Bivens action doesn’t lie for malicious prosecution by the IRS. Ray v. Priver, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15155 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2026).*
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim on post-conviction wasn’t raised in the district court or the Seventh Circuit, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. It also would have lost. Norville v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117220 (C.D. Ill. May 27, 2026).*
Defendant was driving a stolen truck that was being GPS tracked. He had no standing in the truck or the tracking. United States v. Calero, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117363 (M.D. Pa. May 28, 2026).*
Defendant didn’t have standing to challenge the seizure of ketamine off a codefendant. [Even better for him,] There was no probable cause for his warrantless arrest. Akinrinlola v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 4935 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) May 28, 2026).*
Defendant’s regularly visiting a drug trap house confirmed by surveillance and GPS information and further confirmed by his having keys to the building on his person was constructive possession. United States v. Crumpton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14793 (6th Cir. May 22, 2026).*
Defendant’s charged with worker’s comp fraud, and a warrant was obtained for his cell phone. His Franks challenge fails: “Off the bat, the Court disagrees with Defendant that the Affidavit contains any misstatement at all.” United States v. Murphy, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114121 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2026).*
In a child sexual abuse case, defendant’s in house video recording system was seized under a warrant. State v. Gadbois, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 285 (May 19, 2026).*
Pole camera observation for 13 days violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. The state’s search and seizure provision is interpreted the same as the Fourth Amendment. State v. Garrett, 2026 Kan. App. LEXIS 20 (May 22, 2026).
The pictures in the record support that defendant’s windshield was cracked so bad it impaired the driver’s ability to see and justified the stop. United States v. Witt, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14845 (8th Cir. May 26, 2026).*
There is no state constitutional reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with a law enforcement officer posing as a minor for a sexual liaison. State v. Aquino-Martinez, 2026 Haw. App. LEXIS 159 (Apr. 7, 2026).*
Stopping at a stop sign and then signaling violated state law and justified this stop. Porteus v. N.D. DOT, 2026 ND 103 (May 22, 2026).*
In the Washington Post reporter’s search warrant case, the district court held, inter alia, that the overbroad seizure of material was at least First Amendment privileged, and it was ordered returned. In re Natanson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113296 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2026):
Defendant Air Force enlisted man at a base in Italy was convicted of burglary and entering quarters with the intent to assault and photograph what was an AFOSI, where his victim beat him up in the act. Geolocation data from his phone was sought and used. There was a substantial basis for the search authorization, so the good faith exception of M.R.E. 311(c)(3) applies. [It almost suggests geolocation data could have been harmless error, since defendant was arrested shortly after the act.] United States v. Johnson, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 464 (C.A.A.F. May 26, 2026).
The statutory right to consult with counsel before a DUI breath test doesn’t guarantee that it will be flawless. Here, defendant had that opportunity. The right to consult is not founded on the Fourth Amendment or the state constitution. State v. Eaton, 2026 VT 14 (May 1, 2026).*
Bivens provides no remedy for a suit against OFAC. There are other remedies. Bal v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14864 (2d Cir. May 26, 2026).*
A digital computer search that produces an image with a hash value that matches known child pornography is probable cause without the officer even seeing the image. United States v. Johnsen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14893 (9th Cir. May 26, 2026).
The state court proceedings below didn’t result in a final judgment, so there’s no issue preclusion. On qualified immunity, the court can’t say the arrest was with probable cause based on this record, and it’s remanded. Martinez v. City of Pheonix, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14874 (9th Cir. May 26, 2026).*
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the officer decided to call for a dog sniff which occurred almost immediately, within a minute and before paperwork was done. Unprompted, she admitted to a small amount of meth in the car [which was essentially treated as triggered by the dog being there]. The search was legal under Rodriguez. Davis v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 293 (May 26, 2026).*
EMS responded to an overdose call, and they reported what they saw inside which led to police getting a search warrant. Leon v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 171 (May 20, 2026).
“Missouri courts have indicated that the question of whether an arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition — like the question of whether probable cause existed for an arrest — presents what is essentially a mixed question of law and fact. … Thus, appellate courts defer to the trial court’s role as trier of fact in resolving factual issues regarding the circumstances that led to the arrest; however, the ultimate question of whether an arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition based on a particular set of facts (as found by the trial court) presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” Olson v. Dir. of Revenue, 2026 Mo. App. LEXIS 389 n.4 (May 19, 2026).*
The Simmons rule of foregoing one constitutional right for another, there a Fourth and Fifth Amendment claim, doesn’t fit with a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim. Wilcox v. State, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 810 (May 21, 2026).*
When the accused raises a mental health defense, he waives any reasonable expectation of privacy in the records. S.M. v. City of N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3413 (1st Dept. May 21, 2026).*
“[T]he defendant admitted that he possessed a firearm stored in his dresser, and this admission formed the basis for probable cause for a search warrant.” People v. Novotny, 2026 NY Slip Op 03187 (2d Dept. May 20, 2026).*
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment and other ineffective assistance of counsel claims presented in a successor habeas are denied. Issues already raised and decided are waived. In re Gillis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14286 (11th Cir. May 18, 2026).*
It was reasonable to conclude that defendant driver of the car was the owner who was apparently “driving after being certified a habitual offender.” State v. Hobbs, 2026 N.H. LEXIS 91 (Apr. 7, 2026).*
When a likely Franks violation comes out at trial, defendant gets to reopen the suppression issue. Here, the officer’s false statement he was present for a third controlled buy satisfied Franks and was excised. Defense counsel showed that it couldn’t have happened. The remainder says two controlled buys, and these were found to be isolated transactions, the last was 20 days before the warrant issued. Because drugs dissipate relatively quickly, the warrant was stale when it issued. Suppression affirmed. Commonwealth v. Mallory, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 689 (Apr. 21, 2026).
Defendant’s claim the judge’s signature on the search warrant was forged is speculative and denied. No CoA. Crowe v. United States, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14373 (6th Cir. May 19, 2026).*
The continuance of defendant’s stop was justified by the smell of marijuana which was not so improbable that there’s no probable cause. United States v. McIntyre, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14366 (11th Cir. May 20, 2026).*
Defendant’s challenge to the search warrant for his cell phone records focused on one sentence adding nothing to the calculus. On the totality, the 8-page affidavit showed probable cause for the cell phone records. State v. Pinkerton, 2026 R.I. LEXIS 64 (May 19, 2026).*
Any extension of the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. United States v. Rivera-Raposa, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14241 (3d Cir. May 19, 2026).*
Defendant’s motion to suppress claiming there was no reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop for following a tractor-trailer too close is denied based on the officer’s testimony. United States v. Gilley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111425 (W.D. Ark. May 20, 2026).*
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel allegation that failure to file a Fourth Amendment claim over a $362k firearm seizure is speculative and denied. United States v. Giambro, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111408 (D. Me. May 20, 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]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"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.
