E.D.Va.: SW for WaPo’s reporter’s home and devices violated Privacy Protection Act

The search warrant for a Washington Post reporter’s computers, phone, and files violated the Privacy Protection Act because it was not evidence of a crime or contraband. It also implicates prior restraint on speech. The USMJ’s order that the court will review in camera what was seized is affirmed. In the Matter of the Search of the Real Property and Premises of Natanson, 1:26-sw-00054 (WBP-AJT) (E.D. Va. May 5, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SW for WaPo’s reporter’s home and devices violated Privacy Protection Act

E.D.N.Y.: Def’s attempt to escape from a warrantless arrest at the door was exigency

Officers came without a warrant to arrest defendant where he was spending the night, and he tried to escape. That was exigency. United States v. Richard, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99358 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2026).

Defendant’s presence in someone else’s hotel room for “commercial activity” gave him no reasonable expectation of privacy from police entry. United States v. Anderson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99481 (D. Mont. May 4, 2026).*

In the same case, the geofence warrant to identify him was with probable cause, it was particular, and it was executed in good faith. United States v. Jason, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99303 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2026).*

Asking a commercial truck driver about his cargo and inspecting papers did not impermissibly extend the stop. United States v. Tsegay, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99314 (D. Kan. May 4, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, geofence, Good faith exception, Reasonableness | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Def’s attempt to escape from a warrantless arrest at the door was exigency

N.D.Cal.: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation in federal court of 4A claim lost in state court

Plaintiff fully litigated his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and lost. Collateral estoppel bars him from pursuing a federal claim for the same thing. Pelton v. Amador, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98995 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026).

Defendant faults defense counsel for pursuing a meritless motion to suppress he insisted on causing him to forfeit a favorable plea offer. No IAC. State v. Tate, 2026-Ohio-1636 (5th Dist. May 5, 2026).*

That Dropbox reports child porn in its system doesn’t make it a government actor for the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Blocker, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13026 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026).*

The officer knew defendant from long before, and he has a reasonable belief defendant was driving his car while a probation and parole warrant was out for him. United States v. Rodriguez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99220 (D. Mont. May 5, 2026).*

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation in federal court of 4A claim lost in state court

CA1 declines to get into whether undocumented persons are “people” with 4A rights

The First Circuit declines to get into the issue of whether an undocumented person here is part of the “people” with Fourth Amendment rights, instead deciding he loses on the merits. United States v. Vizcaíno-Peguero, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13000 (1st Cir. May 5, 2026).

Defendant doesn’t get discovery to help with a Franks challenge; nothing in Franks suggests that. If more develops, he can file a Franks motion. United States v. Bridges, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98583 (D. Me. May 5, 2026).*

A Fourth Amendment violation has nothing to do with removal proceedings. Romero v. Anda-Ybarra, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98642 (W.D. Tex. May 5, 2026).*

The affiant recklessly omitted important information that would have negated probable cause, but it wasn’t material to the ultimate finding of probable cause. United States v. Foster, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98801 (D. Conn. May 5, 2026).* (Helpful case for both sides of the question elsewhere.)

Posted in Franks doctrine, Immigration arrests, immigration searches, Standing | Comments Off on CA1 declines to get into whether undocumented persons are “people” with 4A rights

E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

The warrant here required “photographing his hands, fingers, and forearms.” The search warrant’s particularity wasn’t violated by manipulating his hands to allegedly mimic what was seen in child pornography photographs off his computer. Search warrants don’t have to specify how they are executed. United States v. Akhter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96842 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2026).

The state can’t appeal an order suppressing bodycam video for violation of state statute. It doesn’t fit within the rule permitting appeals of motions to suppress. People v. Schneider, 2026 CO 27 (May 4, 2026).*

Matching the description of a suspect and being in proximity to the crime is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98540 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2026).*

Defendant was being questioned in an interrogation room, and officers were seeking a search warrant for GSR on his hands. He needed to pee, but they wouldn’t let him go alone because they didn’t want him to wash his hands. He went. Then he confessed while waiting for the warrant. No Fourth or Fifth Amendment violation. Dickey v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 133 (May 5, 2026).*

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

Reason: Surveillance Tools Intended for Border Control Are Being Used Against Americans

Reason: Surveillance Tools Intended for Border Control Are Being Used Against Americans by J.D. Tuccille (“U.S. citizens are being monitored and punished with technology meant to battle illegal immigration.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Reason: Surveillance Tools Intended for Border Control Are Being Used Against Americans

LA5: SW for cell phone including “cloud based storage accessible by the device” not overbroad

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone included “or within cloud based storage accessible by the device.” The warrant was not overbroad. State v. Pampas, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 848 (La. App. 5 Cir May 5, 2026).

Defense counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion isn’t ineffective assistance of counsel without saying what it was about and how the petitioner would win. Gallardo v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96906 (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2026).*

A vehicle may be stopped for actions of the passenger. Here it was belief that he threw a bottle out of the car and there was no one else around. He was apparently armed, and a felon. United States v. Gatnoor, No. 25-2052 (8th Cir. May 5, 2026).*

The drug dog arrived before the ticket could be completed, so the dog sniff didn’t extend the stop. State v. Parks, 2026-Ohio-1629 (6th Dist. May 5, 2026).*

Posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Overbreadth, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on LA5: SW for cell phone including “cloud based storage accessible by the device” not overbroad

WaPo: Second judge maintains DOJ can’t search data seized from Post reporter

WaPo: Second judge maintains DOJ can’t search data seized from Post reporter by Perry Stein
& Aaron Schaffer (“The Justice Department had taken a phone and computers belonging to The Washington Post’s Hannah Natanson as part of a leak investigation.”) The order is here.

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on WaPo: Second judge maintains DOJ can’t search data seized from Post reporter

S.D.Cal.: Refusal to submit to warrant to show face to open cell phone was admissible at trial

Defendant’s refusal to comply with a search warrant for biometric opening of his cell phone (here, a face scan) was admissible at trial to show consciousness of guilt. “Given that ‘[i]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused’s … resistance to arrest … and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself,’ … the Court AGREES that evidence supporting Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with the court Order to unlock his phone at the time of his arrest is admissible to show consciousness of guilt.” United States v. Simons, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96683 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2026).

State law defines the § 1983 statute of limitations, but federal law controls when it accrues. Here, plaintiff’s own exhibits showed he knew about the claim in 2015, ten years before he sued. Jabr v. Dep’t of Taxation, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96424 (S.D. Ohio May 1, 2026).*

Plaintiff claims damages from a search warrant to obtain IP address information. He doesn’t have standing in the third-party records. Pryor v. Gregory, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96428 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2026).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Refusal to submit to warrant to show face to open cell phone was admissible at trial

D.D.C.: Placing firearm on wheel of parked car was abandonment

Police observed defendant place a firearm on the wheel of a parked car where it remained in plain view, and he was later arrested. The firearm was abandoned property, not subject to the search incident doctrine, and the DNA warrant for touch DNA off the gun was issued with probable cause. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96554 (D.D.C. May 1, 2026).*

“The law is well-settled in the Third Circuit that neither a prisoner, nor the recipient of the phone call from the prisoner, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in phone calls that are made from a prison facility.” United States v. Tuggles, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96571 (E.D. Pa. May 1, 2026).*

Defendant’s objections only argue about whether defendant likely was the person carrying drugs and was it “bare bones.” There was particularity and a clause about anything else, but, on the whole, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Kelly, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96401 (W.D. La. Apr. 16, 2026).*

Posted in Abandonment, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Placing firearm on wheel of parked car was abandonment

MD: Hot pursuit can be days later, here exigent CSLI to find alleged murderer on the run

Police had court ordered exigent CSLI from that and a cell site simulator once he was identified as the shooter in a murder 13 days earlier. He was on the run into North Carolina and was eluding capture. This amounted to hot pursuit. Thomas v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 515 (May 1, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Hot pursuit | Comments Off on MD: Hot pursuit can be days later, here exigent CSLI to find alleged murderer on the run

D.D.C.: Alleged illegal arrest doesn’t void DNA SW

Defendant’s allegedly unlawful arrest doesn’t void the later search warrant for a DNA swab based on independent grounds, and not mentioning the alleged illegal arrest. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96554 (D.D.C. May 1, 2026).

Driving a moped on the sidewalk and not wearing a helmet was justification for defendant’s stop, and a gun was legitimately found. United States v. Northover, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95711 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2026).*

Defendant’s general motion to suppress is denied. It doesn’t allege how any rights were violated or what was seized. People v. Louis, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 734 (N.Y. Co. May 1, 2026).*

An overly intrusive state ordered medical exam can violate clearly established law. Wright v. Talamantes, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12696 (9th Cir. May 1, 2026).*

Posted in Body searches, Burden of pleading, DNA, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Alleged illegal arrest doesn’t void DNA SW

S.D.Fla.: Inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not unreasonable

A “clumsy” inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not an unreasonable inventory. No level of specificity is required. United States v. Samuels, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96304 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2026).

The CSAM search warrant here for ten years’ worth of information in specific categories was not overbroad. The state alleged information that supported ten years’ worth. Defendant argues that they were only entitled to two months’ worth. State v. Difilippo, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 201 (Apr. 24, 2026).*

Defendant got six extensions of time to file a suppression motion and was still untimely. Exercising discretion, the court goes to the merits [likely to preempt an IAC claim] and finds the search warrant was issued with probable cause based on reliable informant hearsay. United States v. Hardison, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95414 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 30, 2026).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Inventory, Overbreadth | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not unreasonable

CA4: The fact that ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks

Defendant was charged with witness intimidation for contact with a witness in a criminal case of his. That charge was later dropped, and he sued. Defendants didn’t violate Franks by not mentioning that he never did it again. That’s not material. Brown v. Lott, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12714 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2026).

“[T]he four confidential informants and one anonymous tipster are reliable, corroborated by independent evidence and each other, and support finding probable cause. Three informants have a history of providing reliable information. … Further, three informants provided information against their penal interests by describing their personal involvement with Velisek, so those statements are ‘presumptively credible.’” United States v. Velisek, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96136 (D. Minn. May 1, 2026).

The court’s clarifying question asked during the suppression hearing did not violate due process. Courts can ask some questions, and there was no objection at the time. United States v. Neel, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12681 (11th Cir. May 1, 2026).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: The fact that ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks

CO: Not 4A or state constitutional violation for govt to access def’s computer via peer-to-peer sharing with BitTorrent software

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files on his computer that were open for peer-to-peer sharing. Therefore, when the government used BitTorrent to access his computer, it did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the state constitution. People v. Slusher, 2026 COA 30 (Apr. 30, 2026).

Decedent’s traffic stop led to him being shot and killed. Plaintiff plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Beck v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93300 (D.N.M. Apr. 27, 2026).*

Under Stone, the inquiry is whether the state provided a mechanism to litigate Fourth Amendment claims before trial. The state does here. Cooper v. Cool, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95023 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2026).*

2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is Stoned out. No COA on that or other issues in the case. Zuniga v. Marinich, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12575 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026).*

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Excessive force, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CO: Not 4A or state constitutional violation for govt to access def’s computer via peer-to-peer sharing with BitTorrent software

WSJ: ‘We Know You Live Right Here’: No Secrets in America’s New Surveillance Dragnet

WSJ: ‘We Know You Live Right Here’: No Secrets in America’s New Surveillance Dragnet By Shane Shifflett & Hannah Critchfield (“Technical wizardry used to combat illegal immigration also funnels the personal data and whereabouts of U.S. citizens to federal agents”):

Continue reading
Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on WSJ: ‘We Know You Live Right Here’: No Secrets in America’s New Surveillance Dragnet

NY Columbia Co.: Alleged excessive nervousness when multiple police cars arrive at a traffic stop doesn’t add to RS

Defendant’s alleged excessive nervousness wasn’t visible on the video. And, even if he was, that’s a reasonable response to multiple police cars showing up for a routine traffic stop. No reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. People v. Thomas, 2026 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3967 (Columbia Co. Apr. 27, 2026).

The government [pretty obviously] showed probable cause for prospective cell phone location information of a California to New York drug conspiracy. United States v. Guadarrama, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93491 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026).*

Defendant in his rented truck violated two traffic laws. While the officer was following he checked the license plate reader information that showed the truck had made a quick round trip from Colorado to California. It turned out his girlfriend had rented the truck, but nothing on the rental agreement made him an authorized driver. A drug dog was run around the truck after calling in the information he had and before issuing any citations. The dog alerted, and the use of the ALPR didn’t cause the stop. United States v. Salcido-Gonzalez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12341 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2026).*

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Cell phones | Comments Off on NY Columbia Co.: Alleged excessive nervousness when multiple police cars arrive at a traffic stop doesn’t add to RS

CA4: Backpack dumped in flight in grandmother’s yard was abandoned

Defendant fled the police and tried dumping his backpack at his grandmother’s house. She opened the door, saw what was happening, and shut the door. Continuing to flee, he dumped the backpack on her curtilage. It was found abandoned. United States v. Lodge, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12547 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Abandonment | Comments Off on CA4: Backpack dumped in flight in grandmother’s yard was abandoned

GA: Virtually all-inclusive list of items to be seized wasn’t overbroad

The warrant was all inclusive of drug information including use of the proceeds, and it didn’t violate particularity. Ball v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 222 (Apr. 30, 2026):*

Continue reading
Posted in Overbreadth, Particularity | Comments Off on GA: Virtually all-inclusive list of items to be seized wasn’t overbroad

CA4: Dist.Ct. erred in applying search incident to arrest to suppress bag when inventory was inevitable

The District Court erred in applying search incident to defendant’s bag where there was a valid alternative ground of inevitable discovery through inventory when he would be processed into jail. United States v. Allen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12443 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2026).*

Defendant’s motion papers show no factual dispute on the motion to suppress, so he doesn’t get a hearing. People v. Sampson, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 730 (N.Y. Co. Apr. 9, 2026).*

Defendant’s pole camera argument is unpreserved. People v. Griffin, 2026 NY Slip Op 02670 (2d Dept. Apr. 29, 2026).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion for this probation search. United States v. Spadt, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94611 (D. Mont. Apr. 29, 2026).*

Posted in Inventory, Pole cameras, Search incident, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: Dist.Ct. erred in applying search incident to arrest to suppress bag when inventory was inevitable