Mediate: Trump’s Border Czar Sparks Firestorm of Anger By Telling Fox News ICE Can Detain Based on ‘Physical Appearance’

Posted on July 11, 2025 by Hall

Mediate: Trump’s Border Czar Sparks Firestorm of Anger By Telling Fox News ICE Can Detain Based on ‘Physical Appearance’ by Alex Griffing

Posted in Racial profiling | Comments Off on Mediate: Trump’s Border Czar Sparks Firestorm of Anger By Telling Fox News ICE Can Detain Based on ‘Physical Appearance’

The Scopes trial was 100 years ago today

Posted on July 10, 2025 by Hall

LA Times: When Darrow took on Bryan 100 years ago today, science got the win. Or did it? by Randall Balmer

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Scopes trial was 100 years ago today

N.D.Ga.: No REP in a prison inmate’s cell phone

Posted on July 10, 2025 by Hall

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a cell phone in prison. United States v. Brandt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025).

This line in defendant’s PSR leads to denial of his motion to shorten supervised release. “Fausnaught confronted a source of information that led to the 1995 search warrant, calling him a ‘snitch’, remarking that ‘snitches get stitches,’ and threatening to have the source killed.” United States v. Fausnaught, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130416 (M.D. Pa. July 9, 2025).*

The trial court is to compare the credibility of the officer’s testimony against the video which did not happen here. State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-2427 (5th Dist. July 8, 2025).*

The fact the officer could have attempted to resolve the discrepancy of the VIN not matching the license plate a different way doesn’t mean the officer acted unreasonably, quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-87 (1985) (“[T]he question is not simply whether some other alternative was available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to pursue it”). United States v. Barrow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16896 (5th Cir. July 9, 2025).*

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Reasonableness, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: No REP in a prison inmate’s cell phone

W.D.Wis.: 4A doesn’t require filing SW and application before service

Posted on July 10, 2025 by Hall

Filing a search warrant and application before it is served isn’t a constitutional requirement. [And even if it was, where’s the prejudice?] United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130063 (W.D. Wis. July 8, 2025):

Continue reading →
Posted in Warrant papers | Comments Off on W.D.Wis.: 4A doesn’t require filing SW and application before service

IA: Video shows officers didn’t slow walk traffic stop for dog sniff

Posted on July 9, 2025 by Hall

On de novo review, the officers didn’t slow walk the traffic citation to get more time to do the dog sniff. State v. Cox, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 567 (July 2, 2025)*:

Continue reading →
Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: Video shows officers didn’t slow walk traffic stop for dog sniff

Reclaim The Net: How Digital Convenience Becomes a Government Backdoor

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Hall

Reclaim The Net: How Digital Convenience Becomes a Government Backdoor by Christina Maas (“The Supreme Court’s silence keeps 20th-century privacy rules firmly in place while 21st-century surveillance marches on.”). Well, to be frank, the third-party doctrine isn’t going anywhere as to something like crypto. It’s essentially just a bank record under Smith v. Maryland. And “rejects” is a strong word. Cert denial is “declined for now, maybe forever.” From the article:

Continue reading →
Posted in Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on Reclaim The Net: How Digital Convenience Becomes a Government Backdoor

CA8: Social media video of SW target shooting guns justified no-knock entry

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Hall

Social media videos of a target of the warrant shooting guns viewed before obtaining the warrant justified a no-knock warrant. Davenport v. City of Little Rock, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16540 (8th Cir. July 7, 2025).

Plaintiff’s various claims, including a Fourth Amendment claim, were barred by limitations. Topolski v. Wash. State Dep’t of Licensing, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128433 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2025).*

Post-conviction petitioner shows no grounds on which his Instagram messages should have been suppressed. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel. Turcios v. State, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 311 (July 7, 2025).*

This motion to suppress filed 2½ years after sentencing was waived by the guilty plea, isn’t timely, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. Eddington v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128448 (S.D. Ill. July 7, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Knock and announce | Comments Off on CA8: Social media video of SW target shooting guns justified no-knock entry

OH12: Adoption of suppression motion brief by reference on appeal is waiver

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Hall

Adoption of his suppression motion brief by reference without briefing it was waiver. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with his girlfriend in the presence of a CI. State v. Davis, 2025-Ohio-2382, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2327 (12th Dist. July 7, 2025).

Defendant was asleep in his truck, and there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime to order him out of it. United States v. Richie, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127757 (N.D.W. Va. July 7, 2025).*

The pistol seen in plain view during defendant’s stop was justification for the automobile exception. United States v. Cole, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127782 (E.D. Okla. July 7, 2025).*

Defendant gets no CoA on his Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [Unsaid: He can’t possibly prevail.] United States v. Campbell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16567 (4th Cir. July 7, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on OH12: Adoption of suppression motion brief by reference on appeal is waiver

OH5: Trial court erred in finding no standing when the state didn’t even raise it

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Hall

The trial court erred in finding no standing when the state didn’t even raise it. State v. Reynolds, 2025-Ohio-2347, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2332 (5th Dist. July 2, 2025).

During the stop, the driver could be ordered out of the vehicle. The patdown is a different matter. No showing was made by the government that it was based on reasonable suspicion, but there was a dog sniff based on the smell of marijuana, so all this is inevitable. United States v. Ríos-Sánchez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127498 (D.P.R. July 3, 2025).*

The appellate complaint was that the probable cause issue wasn’t dealt with at the suppression hearing, but it was reopened and it was. United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16514 (6th Cir. July 2, 2025).*

Without deciding the merits of defendant’s nexus claim, there was enough here for the good faith exception to apply. United States v. Cater, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16494 (6th Cir. July 3, 2025).*

Posted in Good faith exception, Standing, Stop and frisk, Waiver | Comments Off on OH5: Trial court erred in finding no standing when the state didn’t even raise it

E.D.Wis.: Heck bar has to be pled in first defensive pleading

Posted on July 8, 2025 by Hall

The Heck bar is an affirmative defense that has to be pled by defendants under F.R.C.P. 8(c). Megna v. Musial, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127980 (E.D. Wis. July 7, 2025).

Defendant’s driving justified his stop. State v. Craven, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1294 (July 7, 2025).*

Under Franks, “Such a substantial preliminary showing requires more than mere allegations of defects in a warrant. A defendant must produce evidence of the complained-of defects by offering affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses. If the defendant cannot produce such evidence, he must explain why he cannot do so.” He fails. In addition, while the probable cause is thin, it’s not nonexistent, and the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Moa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126498 (D. Utah July 2, 2025).*

Administrative summonses for IP subscriber information was not overbroad based on NCMEC reports. That led to search warrants. United States v. Snell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128179 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Heck bar has to be pled in first defensive pleading

CA3: Driveway was not curtilage

Posted on July 7, 2025 by Hall

Defendant’s driveway was not curtilage, so his stop and ultimate search of the car was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Moses, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16484 (3d Cir. July 3, 2025).

De minimis force, even grabbing or choking that leaves only minor injuries, is not excessive force. Glenn v. Britt, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16402 (11th Cir. July 3, 2025).*

There was a fair probability evidence would be found on defendant’s phone concerning an infant death about two weeks earlier. Therefore, the warrant was not stale. State v. White, 2025 S.C. App. LEXIS 42 (July 2, 2025).*

The officer’s statement that defendant had to give a breath sample wasn’t material. “Given that Allen had no constitutional right to refuse the breathalyzer test, the validity of his consent was legally immaterial for purposes of his suppression motion.” State v. Allen, 2025-Ohio-2353 (2d Dist. July 3, 2025).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Consent, Curtilage, Excessive force, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: Driveway was not curtilage

UT: Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply

Posted on July 6, 2025 by Hall

Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply. State v. Abonza, 2025 UT App 101, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 102 (July 3, 2025).

Based on collective knowledge, there was probable cause for defendant’s stop. Morris v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4773 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth July 3, 2025).*

Defendant doesn’t have standing to challenge this car search, and the motion to reconsider is denied. United States v. Gaines, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126894 (N.D. Ohio June 24, 2025).*

The legality of the warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone while in his halfway house doesn’t have to be decided because there was a subsequent warrant for it. United States v. Weste, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16447 (5th Cir. July 3, 2025).*

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on UT: Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply

OH: No REP in single location info entered into a phone app

Posted on July 4, 2025 by Hall

Defendant’s single location information entered into a phone app that was used to set up a robbery was basic third-party information not protected by Carpenter. State v. Diaw, 2025-Ohio-2323 (July 2, 2025):

Continue reading →
Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on OH: No REP in single location info entered into a phone app

E.D.Ark.: Reacting defensively to request for consent contributed to RS

Posted on July 4, 2025 by Hall

[While it was thin,] The officer had reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff, including “react[ing] defensively when asked for consent to search the Sentra by making a facial expression, flailing his arms to the side, and offering unprompted explanations as to what he was doing.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126662 (E.D. Ark. July 3, 2025)*:

Continue reading →
Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: Reacting defensively to request for consent contributed to RS

N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine

Posted on July 4, 2025 by Hall

The government admits that the warrant lacked particularity, but they sought to use the good faith exception to sustain a limited search. The problem there is that the person who sought the warrant didn’t search it, and he instructed the searcher to search the entire phone. Therefore, the good faith exception did not apply to the particularity claim. The officer’s candid motive to get a second search warrant to cure the first doesn’t satisfy the attenuation doctrine, and the motion to suppress should be granted. United States v. Gross, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126677 (N.D. Iowa July 3, 2025) (R&R). The court surveys the cases and concludes:

Continue reading →
Posted in Attenuation, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine

KS: There’s a statutory right of def to SW affidavits

Posted on July 3, 2025 by Hall

A person accused has a statutory right of access to search warrant affidavits in his own case. “The applicable provisions state only that the documents ‘shall be made available’ to defendants ‘when requested,’ without specifying to whom the request should be directed.” State v. Haynes, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 157 (July 3, 2025).

“A police officer armed with probable cause to believe a home contains evidence of a serious crime that might otherwise be destroyed may lawfully secure the home and restrict entry while waiting for an assisting officer to diligently procure a search warrant.” There was exigency and defendant also consented to it all. State v. Arredondo, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 158 (July 3, 2025).*

Disagreeing with a state visibility of the license plate number in federal cases, the state court clarifies that the totality of circumstances applies to the visibility requirement which can be different things at different times and conditions. Whether the state name is clearly visible isn’t a statutory requirement. Denial of motion to suppress reversed, and the case is remanded. State v. Beck, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 155 (July 3, 2025).*

Posted in Consent, Emergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on KS: There’s a statutory right of def to SW affidavits

W.D.Wash.: No 4A right to personal service of a SW

Posted on July 3, 2025 by Hall

In this 2254, petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn’t object that the search warrant was not personally served on him wasn’t a constitutional requirement. Also barred by Stone. Witkowski v. Bennett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126262 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2025).

Defendant’s 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel is denied for failing to show that a motion to suppress would have been granted or the outcome different. United States v. Aside, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125901 (D. Nev. July 2, 2025).*

The state parole search of defendant’s cell phone was justified by reasonable suspicion under special needs. United States v. Watson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125812 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2025).*

Defendant was given the chance to elaborate in opposition to the government’s claim of abandonment, but he remained silent. Abandonment found. United States v. Pérez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126505 (D.P.R. June 30, 2025).*

Posted in Abandonment, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: No 4A right to personal service of a SW

CA1: Video of SW execution sufficiently authenticated for trial

Posted on July 3, 2025 by Hall

The video of execution of the search warrant was sufficiently authenticated to be admissible at trial despite coming in through a witness other than the one who took it. United States v. Reyes-Rosario, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16316 (1st Cir. June 5, 2025).

The probable cause for defendant’s arrest included probable cause to search his backpack too. United States v. Brito, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126351 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2025).*

A private search of defendant’s cell phone resulted in four search warrants, all with probable cause. United States v. Lawson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126221 (E.D. Mich. July 2, 2025),*

When defendant doesn’t dispute material facts of the stop, a hearing isn’t required. Based on the video and the statements of witnesses, there was probable cause for his arrest. Then the vehicle search was proper as a search incident. United States v. Morfin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125265 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2025).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Private search, Probable cause, Search incident, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA1: Video of SW execution sufficiently authenticated for trial

Reason: Do Arrest Warrants Have a Diligence Requirement?

Posted on July 2, 2025 by Hall

Reason: Do Arrest Warrants Have a Diligence Requirement? by Orin Kerr:

Continue reading →
Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off on Reason: Do Arrest Warrants Have a Diligence Requirement?

OR: Use of a powerful zoom to show covered up marijuana plants violated state constitution

Posted on July 2, 2025 by Hall

Officers were doing a marijuana flyover looking for another operation and saw what appeared to be a grow operation on defendant’s property. The affidavit for probable cause only said that the officer saw and photographed evidence that could indicate a grow operation but did not actually see marijuana, except with a powerful zoom. That wasn’t enough to see marijuana undercover from ⅔ of a mile above. Here, the zoom of the camera made individual plants under plastic sheeting visible, and that was a search of a private place that couldn’t be done with the naked eye. State v. Nakhiengchahn, 341 Or. App. 516 (July 2, 2025):

Continue reading →
Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on OR: Use of a powerful zoom to show covered up marijuana plants violated state constitution