Denying knowledge of the car involved was a lack of standing. United States v. Powers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237574 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8322 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2025).
“The totality of the information in the affidavit provides a substantial basis to find that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the two residences.” Defendants had standing in their residence that they temporarily vacated while HVAC repairs were being done. United States v. Evans, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237583 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 26, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2025).*
The officer had reasonable suspicion to make this stop, and independent reasonable suspicion for continuing it developed. United States v. Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9274 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 17, 2025).*
Where defendant was convicted of making threats over the internet to a Congressman, a two year computer monitoring condition was reasonable and did not violate the First and Fourth Amendment. United States v. Hall, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1109 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2025).
Fact questions remain whether the officer was justified in shooting a 22 pound dog that was wagging his tail and otherwise seemed friendly during a DV call. Brown v. Burmaster, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1129 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025).*
Plaintiff inmate doesn’t yet state a Fourth Amendment claim for his prison search and strip search. “Allegations of a ‘very aggressive’ pat down do not plausibly state an excessive force claim.” Wilson-Walker v. Gambone, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9041 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2025).*
This email search warrant was particular as to the account to be searched and limited by time. United States v. Jama, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9102 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2025).*
It was not improper for the PO to turn defendant’s phone over to the FBI to search it when it was already lawfully seized. “This is not a stalking horse case.” The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Fuller, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237560 (D. Ariz. Dec. 30, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7662 (D. Ariz. Jan. 14, 2025).
Plaintiff’s false arrest claim for domestic violence against police officers fails because there was probable cause. Shepard v. Does, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8884 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2025).*
Petitioner’s CoA request is almost summarily denied under Stone v. Powell. Diaz v. Lumpkin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1084 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025).*
The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment in defendant’s arrest, and, even if they did, the specific act wasn’t clearly established at the time. Cantu v. Austin Police Dep’t, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1127 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025).*
Professor Robert Leider, who writes in both constitutional law and criminal law, passed along these comments on the Supreme Court’s recent oral argument in an excessive force case and I thought readers might be interested in them:
For scholars of both criminal law and federal courts, the Supreme Court’s oral argument yesterday in Barnes v. Felix will be noteworthy. The Supreme Court appears dangerously close to sleepwalking into a major revision of police self-defense law. For federal courts scholars, meanwhile, yesterday’s oral argument stood as a painful reminder of how the Court has corrupted certiorari review by detaching itself from deciding actual cases.
Posted inExcessive force, SCOTUS|Comments Off on Reason: “the Supreme Court’s oral argument yesterday in Barnes v. Felix will be noteworthy.”
The “imprint” of a gun in the pocket can be reasonable suspicion defendant is carrying. United States v. Morris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8729 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2025).
Defendant is charged with six Hobbs Act robberies. His vehicle was stopped for matching the description of a vehicle possibly involved, albeit a day later and in the same area. Running the LPN showed no insurance so that was actual justification for the stop. He made statements that led to search warrants, and they were both with probable cause and the good faith exception applicable. United States v. Hopkins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8742 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2025).*
Defendant argues her stop was pretextual but it’s essentially a credibility argument on whether the officer was believable that a traffic offense actually occurred. United States v. Celaya-Rodriguez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8664 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 16, 2025).*
This traffic stop was unduly prolonged in violation of Rodriguez because it was extended by asking drug dealing related questions and only then running the name. Defendant’s nervousness also didn’t provide independent reasonable suspicion for the stop. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Cruz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8676 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2025).*
Defendant’s motion in limine about whether a search warrant was utilized is denied. The government can refer incidentally to the search. United States v. Djan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8285 (D.R.I. Jan. 10, 2025).
Officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop and continuation of it, and his actions toward his jacket gave them probable cause to believe there was something in it. United States v. Peake-Wright, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1043 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025).*
Defendant didn’t have standing to challenge the search of cell phones found on the premises that were not his. United States v. Dirksmeyer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8423 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2025).*
“With or without this [Franks challenged] statement, the affidavit still contains a sufficient basis to find probable cause. For the same reasons, Neves’ assertion that the affidavit lacked an independent basis of knowledge for the accusation fails.” United States v. Neves, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8377 (D. Me. Jan. 16, 2025).*
Applying the “drug dealer inference” for nexus, the court finds probable cause to believe defendant was dealing drugs from his house to support the search warrant. United States v. Evans, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2025):
Consent obtained by trickery is not voluntary. United States v. Beland, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1019 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025).
“[T]here is no indication from the record that the consent was in any way coerced, that Fiallos-Pena and Verganza ever felt pressured to provide consent, or that the officers acted improperly when seeking consent.” United States v. Verganza, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 998 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).*
2254 petitioner’s claim his DNA was unlawfully taken is barred by Stone. Banks v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8193 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2025).*
2254 petitioner’s claim his cell phone was unlawfully searched is barred by Stone. Whitby v. Artis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 979 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).*
Defendant’s traffic stop was valid, but the state failed to show the impoundment complied with departmental policies. There was no evidence the vehicle was unsecured or unsafe if left at the scene. The inventory search failed to follow departmental procedures requiring a complete inventory list and proper documentation. There were also indications the inventory search was merely a pretext to search for evidence, and that was unconstitutional. People v. Gray, 2025 NY Slip Op 00249, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261 (3d Dept. Jan. 16, 2025).
“Faced with uncontroverted evidence of two traffic violations at the evidentiary hearing, Defendant conceded the dark window tint and argued only that the license plate violation could not have been observed until the SUV passed by Officer Bensema. … Regardless of the established traffic violations, according to Defendant, because Officer Bensema had received prior information from Sgt. Stripling about possible narcotics in the SUV, the stop was ‘textbook’ pretext, and the evidence must be suppressed. Id. The Court disagrees.” United States v. Bolding, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8006 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2025).*
As a passenger, defendant shows no standing to challenge the search of the car. United States v. Nuñez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8116 (D.P.R. Jan. 14, 2025).*
The stop was valid, but the stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion when running the criminal history of the passenger. That was not part of the incidents of the traffic stop. The frisk was also unreasonable. Also, “The Court finds that the existence of tattoos and a red banana on its own do not form a basis for reasonable suspicion of any crime. Accordingly, the further investigation into Rubio was outside the scope of the traffic stop, and it undisputedly added time to the stop. Thus, the Court finds that the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged.” United States v. Rubio, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8247 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2025).
“Here, the credibility determination of the Supreme Court is supported by the record. The description of the events in the warrant application and the consistency of the witness’s testimony at the Darden hearing established the identity of the confidential informant and that the informant gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause.” People v. Suarez, 2025 NY Slip Op 00239 (2d Dept. Jan. 15, 2025).*
“The court reiterates its prior ruling that Mr. Gumbs’s interactions with W. Taylor independently established probable cause to search Mr. Gumbs’s home and, here, to seize his phones. But even if it did not, there were four additional events (on top of several other details in affidavits submitted in this case) which together establish probable cause.” United States v. Gumbs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7720 (D. Conn. Jan. 15, 2025).*
“Defendant’s flight from law enforcement is, however, not the only basis to support the existence of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in the Jeep. The probable cause to search the Jeep is also bolstered by Sgt. Tibbetts’ mistaken but reasonable belief based on the Defendant’s own gestures that he had a firearm. The fact that no firearm was recovered from the Jeep or Defendant’s person does not alter the fact of Sgt. Tibbetts’ objective reasonable belief that Defendant possessed a firearm supports probable cause that a firearm could be recovered in a search of the Jeep.” United States v. Holbdy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237346 (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6760 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2025).*
A motion to suppress filed but never presented to the trial court for resolution is waived. Young v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 13 (Jan. 15, 2025).*
Defendant has the burden of showing a Gerstein/Riverside violation. There’s no evidence that the process was slow walked to prejudice him. In addition, the police are free to continue investigating after the arrest [and should]. State v. Worley, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Jan. 15, 2025).*
“[T]he exclusionary rule—absent a showing of bad faith—does not apply in a revocation hearing.” Wallace v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 19 (Jan. 15, 2025).
An officer on patrol in a motel parking lot saw defendant’s car. They drove past each other and defendant stopped with his window down. The officer could smell marijuana. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 931 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).*
The officer’s executing a pre-signed arrest warrant for a DV probation violator was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Quisenberry v. Ridge, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 930 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).*
The warrant for defendant’s storage unit came two months after its seizure. Whether it was a constitutional violation doesn’t matter because it was harmless. United States v. Kowalczyk, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 936 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).*
Defendant fled, he said, in fear of his life, not knowing that it was the police. He abandoned property in flight. The fact the later arrest might turn out to be invalid doesn’t undo the abandonment. United States v. Ross, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237310 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7104 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2025).
Officers had a motel parking lot under surveillance and saw defendant’s car. They found an arrest warrant and made the arrest. The inventory was valid. United States v. Potter, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 905 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).*
Officers stopped defendant for not having a front license plate. The stop led to a confrontation, and defendant refused to stop or accede to reasonable requests. He was moving around in his car and attempted to drive at one of the officers. Pulling their weapons was not unreasonable. United States v. Delpriore, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 898 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025).*
2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim was a successor petition and barred. In re McGore, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 900 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).*
The police entered defendant’s home on a report of a dead body inside. They knew, however, the person was dead at least a day and likely wasn’t inside the home by then. The emergency exception did not apply. United States v. Giambro, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 950 (1st Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).
The Stone bar applies as long as there is a state mechanism for bringing Fourth Amendment claims. Failure to fully litigate it is on the accused, not the state. Ellis v. Gorder, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7112 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 13, 2025).*
“After considering the facts presented at the suppression hearing, the court concludes that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred in this case because (1) the vehicle Mr. Martinez-Chavez was driving was lawfully stopped, (2) the first firearm was seen through the window of the vehicle in plain view while law enforcement officers were still making inquiries within the lawful scope of the stop, and (3) seeing the firearm, which one officer immediately identified as a sawed-off weapon, in the context of the encounter as it had evolved, gave the officers grounds for conducting a protective search of the vehicle, and, indeed, probable cause for a search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” United States v. Martinez-Chavez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7423 (W.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2025).*
The Postal Inspector here prepared the search warrant affidavit, and the affidavit was to be incorporated with the warrant. The warrant was filed, however, by the USAO without the affidavit attached. The good faith exception applies. The officer did nothing wrong. This was at worst just an isolated act of negligence, and the district court erred in suppressing the search. United States v. Medina, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 952 (1st Cir. Jan. 15, 2025):
Instagram warrants were supported by probable cause showing both that crimes occurred and that evidence would be found in the account, based on the detailed facts in the affidavits. The warrants satisfied the particularity requirement as the date ranges were tailored to the probable cause, and the breadth of data categories was justified by defendant’s use of Instagram as an instrumentality of his crimes. As to a cell phone, defendant didn’t have standing. Coffield v. State, 2025 Del. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 14, 2025).
Officers had a DNA warrant for defendant. Because of his history of violence they reasonably detained and handcuffed him. He spontaneously admitted to having a gun. United States v. Stiff, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6985 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 14, 2025).*
Detaining plaintiff at gunpoint was reasonable. The bodycam shows him running into another person with his truck, and he was hostile to the officers. Spratlen v. Rainey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237222 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6461 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2025).*
The search warrant was for 8977 Deer Trail Run, but it turned out to be two properties. “From all outward appearances there was only one property, not two. The officers acted in objectively reasonable good faith in relying on the warrant.” The affidavit was not bare bones, and there was no material false statement. United States v. Siegert, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 844 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025).
Objecting only to the alternative holdings for the R&R doesn’t even challenge the probable cause, which is present. R&R adopted. United States v. McDowell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6753 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 14, 2025).*
Defense counsel’s boilerplate motion to suppress that cited no law or facts and referred to nonexistent things was mentioned as a possible ineffective assistance of counsel claim, among other claims, but only by one dissenter. People v. Howard, 2025 NY Slip Op 00184, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 39 (Jan. 14, 2025).* [Seen that many times before; that’s just lazy and shows they don’t intend to pursue suppression.]
Stopping and searching the car and person of defense counsel coming into a USMS jail did not violate defendant’s right to access to counsel. The limitations were all reasonable. United States v. Freeman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6745 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2025):
Posted inPrison and jail searches, Privileges|Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Search of lawyers and their cars coming into jail did not obstruct access to counsel
Petitioners show a likelihood of success on their claim for injunctive relief from unrestrained “administrative inspections,” essentially without boundaries. Super Smoke N Save LLC v. N.Y. State Cannabis Control Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 25009 (Albany Co. Jan. 13, 2025). As to colonial writs of assistance:
Police encountered defendant because he was experiencing an overdose. A frisk of his pockets for the cause produced a gun. United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236845 (D. Minn. Nov. 25, 2024), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4921 (D.Minn. Jan. 10, 2025).
The state search warrant here was without probable cause and the good faith exception didn’t apply. A federal search warrant, however, was valid. United States v. Tyson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6604 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2025).* (A long convoluted case about computer search warrant and lack of probable cause.).
The car defendant was in was suspected of recent car burglaries, and that was reason for the stop. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5932 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2025).*
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"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
"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)
