Search under a general administrative tax warrant under state law violates the Fourth Amendment. This involved a search of a house where the taxes were not paid on illegal drugs. Also, it was issued by the Secretary of Revenue and not a judicial officer. State v. Hickman, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 784 (Nov. 5, 2025).
The district court erred in dismissing this case as moot. It sought recovery of seized money and the affidavits for warrant. Payment of the money didn’t make it moot. Cal. Palms Addiction Recovery Campus, Inc. v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29180 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025).*
There was consent to search defendant’s cell phone, and the search incident of his truck was reasonable. United States v. Smtih, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218961 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2025).*
“Somehow dismissing the reports of interview, the text messages, and their own surveillance, Defendant claims the FBI had no knowledge that a drug transaction was about to occur. Such facts are not required because probable cause is ‘a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.’ Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013).” The CI’s information was creditable. United States v. Oca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218877 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2025).*
Defendant had no standing to contest the opening of an apartment refrigerator finding a decapitated body. This was plain smell. The officers could smell the decomposing body, and that was enough to open the refrigerator door. People v. McGee, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 3480 (Kings Co. Nov. 7, 2025).
The product of a Brazilian cell phone search showed defendant was hiding assets he didn’t disclose to pretrial services. Release denied. United States v. Braga, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220310 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t get discovery of the CI’s drug buy that led to the search warrant. There’s a limited privilege to not disclose the CI’s identity. United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29357 (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025).*
Defendant’s shifting arguments in the district court lead the court of appeals to conclude waiver of the issue now presented on appeal. United States v. Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29273 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025).*
Summary by the court: “The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Henderson, its police department, and several police officers arising from the shooting death of 12-year-old Joseph Hawatmeh, who officers attempted to rescue from a man who had killed Joseph’s mother and housekeeper, gravely wounded his sister, and was holding him hostage. [¶] The panel held that the officers did not violate Joseph’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force. The officers did not seize Joseph for Fourth Amendment purposes when they employed control tactics or force in an attempt to rescue him from an active hostage situation. Moreover, even had plaintiffs plausibly alleged a constitutional violation, the officers would be entitled to qualified immunity because Joseph’s right to be free of excessive force during an active hostage situation was not clearly established at the time of the violation.” Hawatmeh v. City of Henderson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29328 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on CA9: Accidentally killing the hostage was subject to qualified immunity
Being a federal contractor wasn’t enough to make defendant food service company a state actor. Ellis v. Ben E. Keith Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217957 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2025).
Officers had a warrant for the place searched and found defendant’s bag in a cooler there, one he had on him earlier. It was covered by the warrant where it was found. United States v. Alston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218079 (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2025).*
Consent isn’t involuntary just because the officer has the defendant’s ID when asked. Torralba v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 8324 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 5, 2025).* (Interestingly, this opinion is a string of quotes from other cases following “Affirmed.” I saw that once before in a fictional opinion in the NLJ back in the 1990s. Surely they’ve done this before, but I just haven’t seen it.)
Posted inConsent, Private search, Scope of search|Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Merely being a federal contractor doesn’t make employer’s search state action
In re Application for AT&T Non-Disclosure Order, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218179 (D.N.M. Nov. 4, 2025), is denied for lack of certification from a supervising official as required by statute.
Defendant was subject to a probation search waiver, and there was also probable cause for a warrant. United States v. German, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215173 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2025).*
Officers did not violate clearly established law and their force escalated as force was escalated against them. This happened inside plaintiff’s home, and she had in-home video which was corroborated by the bodycams of the officers. Johnson v. Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29049 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025).*
Ohio rules clearly provide a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate search and seizure claims, so habeas relief for that claim is denied. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218066 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2025).*
A welfare check that is objectively reasonable isn’t unreasonable because of a mixed motive to arrest if necessary. State v. Leiby, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 8339 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2025).
The police had (plenty) of probable cause to stop defendant for a homicide. The car likely was the one involved and it was his. Shuler v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 909 (Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. He simply doesn’t show a material falsity. United States v. McCullough, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215232 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendants are accused of a cocaine conspiracy of trafficking from South America to Europe through the US. The government obtained information from European counties via MLAT, and whatever assistance they gave to help gather information didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Gogic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215187 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2025).*
The government’s motion to seal search warrant materials from a year ago because the investigation is ongoing is denied for lack of a showing of justification. In re Matter of Application by United States for Search Warrant to Search, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218242 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025):
“Defendant Halima Salman is charged with receiving military type training from a foreign terrorist organization in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339D.” The government maintains a database of who is involved in military activities overseas: NMEC. Defendant’s husband’s cell phone was seized in Syria and the contents uploaded; pictures, social media posts, etc. There’s no challenge to that seizure. Searching the database did not violate the Fourth Amendment. There was no standing in his phone, and there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in that database. United States v. Salman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218278 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025).
Officer’s seeing a hand rolled cigarette during a traffic stop for window tint was reasonable suspicion. State v. Perry, 2025-Ohio-4945 (5th Dist. Oct. 28, 2025).*
There is no doubt that there was probable cause for defendant’s detention, handcuffing, and frisk. Farden v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213214 (D.N.M. Oct. 29, 2025).*
CoA on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim of failing to properly litigate a Franks motion. The government supplemented the record below to clarify ambiguities. Ward v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28591 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).*
“Applying this deference here, we conclude that the state judge properly found probable cause based on the informant’s claims that Howard stored illegal drugs at his apartment. The officer’s affidavit adequately established the informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge. First, the affidavit showed the informant’s reliability in two ways. It described the informant’s ‘past performance’ by explaining that the informant had ‘always’ given reliable information and had completed ‘umerous’ controlled buys. … It then discussed the ‘independent investigative work’ that corroborated the informant’s statements.” United States v. Howard, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28388 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s challenge to his parole arrest and search is barred by Heck. Jones v. Toth, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213537 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2025).*
The affidavit showed a substantial basis for probable cause for defendant’s CSLI to connect him to a robbery. Frazier v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8552 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) Nov. 6, 2025).*
Defendants are accused to a cocaine conspiracy of trafficking from South America to Europe through the US. The government obtained information from European counties via MLAT, and whatever assistance they gave to help gather information didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Gogic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215187 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendant was subject to a probation search waiver, and there was also probable cause for a warrant. United States v. German, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215173 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2025).*
The police had (plenty) of probable cause to stop defendant for a homicide. The car likely was the one involved and it was his. Shuler v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 909 (Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. He simply doesn’t show a material falsity. United States v. McCullough, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215232 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025).*
The affidavit for warrant refers to a video of an occurrence, but, without seeing the video, the USMJ can’t decide probable cause for the warrant. Otherwise, it’s ratifying the officer’s conclusions, mentioning being a “rubber stamp.” In re Search of the Subject Phone, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215447 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2025).
There was probable cause: “Here, the search-warrant application with the accompanying affidavit and the search warrant were admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing. The affidavit detailed the call to appellant asking him to bring methamphetamine to Dollar General, that appellant was carrying methamphetamine when arrested, that appellant admitted he had drug paraphernalia in the RV, that appellant admitted selling methamphetamine because he had lost his job, and that a cell phone was seized from appellant when arrested.” Kelly v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 519 (Oct. 29, 2025).*
A 72 hour property restriction in prison is not a Fourth Amendment violation. White v. Payne, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213382 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2025).*
Reason: Man Accused of Soliciting Teen Girl Walks Because of Federal Overreach by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“In its zeal to ratchet up more sex trafficking prosecutions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) overreached—and it backfired. Now, a seeming sexual predator may escape conviction because the feds couldn’t just leave local crime to local authorities. The DOJ tried to invoke jurisdiction because the potential predator—an adult man who tried to pay his friend’s teen daughter for sex on multiple occasions—used money, used a car that was made out of state, and drove on a road. No dice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit said in an October 2 decision. Allowing this would put us on the path to letting Congress usurp police power retained by the states and federalize virtually any crime.”)
The client was detained on conviction, and the client fired me for being ineffective. But the trial judge set aside the verdict after about a month based on my motion for judgment of acquittal and released the client. United States v. Arif, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93295 (E.D. Ark. May 24, 2024), aff’d 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25582 (8th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025). Another lawyer handled the appeal.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Reason: Man Accused of Soliciting Teen Girl Walks Because of Federal Overreach
Jared Fishman & John J. Choi, High Risk, Low Return: The Case Against Non-Public-Safety Traffic Stops, 40 Criminal Justice No. 3 at 35 (Fall 2025) (not online yet, print only)
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on ABA: High Risk, Low Return: The Case Against Non-Public-Safety Traffic Stops
The “in the presence” of the officer for misdemeanor arrests is not a part of the common law, citing Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 995 (7th Cir. 2000). It is by statute or rule in various places. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210476 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 16, 2025).
The CI here provided photographs of the interior of defendant’s house for the police. The defense claim that photographs can easily be altered nowadays isn’t supported by anything other than speculation. But, the question is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212725 (D. Alaska Oct. 27, 2025).
Despite defendant’s suppressed statement, there was probable cause for the warrant for his place for clothes worn at the time of the murder. Commonwealth v. Almeida, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 546 (Oct. 27, 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, 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]
“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)
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.
