Too detailed an inventory not unreasonable. “Lynch offers no argument to suggest that his vehicle was not properly subject to the tow policy and its accompanying inventory search. Instead, Lynch appears to take it issue with the manner in which Officer Wolk conducted the inventory search. More specifically, Lynch appears to contend that Officer Wolk’s failure to inventory every item in the vehicle somehow transformed the legal and permissible inventory search to an unlawful, warrantless investigatory search. The Court finds no merit in this contention.” United States v. Lynch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207809 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 15, 2026).*
There was conflicting evidence, but it’s not clear there wasn’t probable cause for arrest. Thus, qualified immunity. Wadkins v. Klingshirn, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28240 (6th Cir. Sep. 14, 2026).*
Respondent showed no reasonable expectation of privacy in a video on someone else’s SD card. State v. Catherine, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1815 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 14, 2026).*
The valid stop was at 1:45 am in a high crime area with furtive movements. They ordered the driver out and the passenger to stay in. The valid protective sweep of defendant’s car came after the officer learned of his criminal history. Claiborne v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 491 (Sep. 15, 2026) (with a dissent).
The U.S. Coast Guard can board a stateless vessel in the Dominican Republic’s Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”). The delay in presentment was not unreasonable. The defendants were brought first to Gitmo and then to the Southern District of Florida. In re United States, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28234 (11th Cir. Sep. 15, 2026).*
“The affidavit provided probable cause to believe that Mr. Martin is a drug dealer and that the residence and storage unit were used as part of his drug trafficking activity.” He was surveilled for a while before probable cause developed. Also, his Franks challenge fails. “The only alleged false statement in the affidavit he identifies was the statement that Mr. Martin had ‘almost daily access to Target Location 2.’ … True, the access code records for the storage unit could not definitively attribute the code uses to Mr. Martin, rather than A.H. or another individual. But, while the characterization of the access records may not have been ideal, the statement was not false.” United States v. Martin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207683 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2026).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Protective sweep|Comments Off on VA: Stop at night in high-crime area with furtive movements made sweep of car reasonable after learning of def’s criminal history
Exclusionary rule only applies to blameworthy conduct, not isolated mistakes. United States v. Walker, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28223 (3d Cir. Sep. 15, 2026):
“Defendant cites no authority to the effect that a Fourth Amendment violation requires automatic dismissal of the indictment. Instead, he attempts to tie the alleged violations into his greater theory of outrageous government conduct under Rochin, Russell and Twigg. However, those cases deal with circumstances in which the government created the crime, they do not speak to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The second point to be made is that generally, Fourth Amendment violations result not in dismissal as is the prayer for relief here, but instead in suppression of the illegally obtained evidence.” United States v. Cuevas-Hernández, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207483 (D.P.R. Sep. 11, 2026).
Defendant’s frisk during his traffic stop was reasonable. “Under the totality of the circumstances analysis, we conclude that the combination of (1) the timing and location of the traffic stop; (2) Garrison’s evasive action of rolling up his tinted windows and putting on a sweatshirt during the traffic stop; (3) his particularized nervous response to the question of whether he had a firearm on his person; and (4) his physical movements that obscured part of his waistband was sufficient to support the officer’s reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress.” Garrison v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 487 (Sep. 15, 2026).*
Defendant was in the ER and the hospital had his clothes. A spent shell casing was discovered in his pants by a nurse and it was turned over to the police. That was a private search. United States v. Young, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207457 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 14, 2026).
The CI’s information was predictive that a tracked package with a controlled substance would arrive at an address in Kenner. While under surveillance, the package arrived, and 20 minutes later, defendant showed up, went briefly inside, and left. That was reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Woods, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1795 (La. App. 5 Cir Sep. 11, 2026).*
There was probable cause for the search warrant here, and it was not bare bones. Therefore, the good faith exception applies also. United States v. Jackson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207087 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 14, 2026).*
Nexus was shown. “As the Government acknowledged at oral argument, the affidavit could have contained more detail on the tracking data. But the details included nonetheless establish a ‘fair probability’ that the evidence would be found there, and that is all that is required.” United States v. Vongdala, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207360 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 14, 2026).*
Records from PayPal and Block were mere third-party records under Miller. The search of his cell phone at Customs at the Houston airport was a routine border search. Child pornography was found on it. United States v. Flores, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207304 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2026).*
“Here, the Court finds that defense counsel had all the information necessary to bring the referenced motion by the deadline for such motions. Moreover, the Court finds that, because of defense counsel’s undue delay, the Government was not prepared, before and during the evidentiary hearing, to substantively respond to a challenge of the duration of the stop under Rodriguez v. United States. … For all of these reasons, the Court finds that defense counsel has not shown good cause for the filing of an untimely motion in limine.” Even on the merits, defendant would lose on his Rodriguez issue. United States v. Abdullah, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206547 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 14, 2026).*
The police video was too grainy to really see any real detail, so the district court could rely on the officer’s testimony. United States v. Jackson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28095 (10th Cir. Sep. 14, 2026).*
While defendant’s parole arrest by a police officer violated state statute, neither the Fourth Amendment nor state constitution require suppression. State v. Satterfield, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 129 (Sep. 11, 2026):
Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest with a person who had their case adjudicated adversely in state court. Valdez v. City of Provo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204752 (D. Utah Sep. 9, 2026).
Information that defendant has a child pornography prior from 2010 didn’t make it stale that the affiant inferred defendant was a collector of child porn. Kelly v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203052 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 9, 2026).*
There was probable cause for a vehicle search, and officers were getting a warrant. A dog sniff while they were waiting for the warrant didn’t delay anything. United States v. Holmes, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204248 (D. Minn. Sep. 10, 2026).*
GPS monitoring of a probationer known to leave his limited area wasn’t unreasonable. Buskirk v. Pa. Bd. of Prob., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204145 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 10, 2026).*
Defendant gets a hearing on whether Flock is “more like a security camera or CSLI data.” United States v. Thomas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204025 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2026):
Possession of a firearm in one’s pocket in an open carry state is not reasonable suspicion. Being in a high crime area adds nothing to that. United States v. Joseph, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27723 (11th Cir. Sep. 9, 2026).
Here, the CI’s information about defendant’s travel was corroborated by Flock camera readings. United States v. Robertson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203090 (N.D. Iowa Sep. 9, 2026).*
The investigating officer tried hard to ascertain defendant’s address connecting him to a place to be searched, and he could rely on a social media post listing it as home, even though public databases put him elsewhere (but that was old information). There was no false information for Franks, and the totality showed a reasonable inference of location. United States v. Staples, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203036 (D. Nev. July 21, 2026).*
Colorado courts have jurisdiction to issue subpoenas for out-of-state records. Citation of the wrong statute in the application didn’t make it void. People v. Jargowsky, 2026 COA 66 (Sep. 3, 2026).
There was no probable cause for this warrant for this social media account that he was in control of it posting pictures of a person with firearms that the police believed was him. Despite the lack of justification, the good faith exception saves this search. United States v. Mangum, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201239 (E.D. Va. Sep. 3, 2026).*
Warrantless placing a GPS tracker on a parolee’s car is reasonable. Despite the court’s sympathy for the argument, the Ninth Circuit already held that it is in United States v. Korte, 918 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2019). United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200268 (D. Idaho Sep. 2, 2026).
Even if the cell phone warrant was erroneously issued lacking particularity, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Kennedy v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 272 (Sep. 9, 2026).*
School resource officers also need reasonable suspicion for a weapons search in school, and here the officer had it. At a middle school no less. In re N.S., 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 548 (4th Dist. Sep. 8, 2026).
As long as there’s a factual basis for a traffic stop, it’s reasonable, even if pretextual, and “a citation need not be issued for the traffic violation in order for a traffic stop to be considered valid.” United States v. Gustafson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202638 (D. Mont. Sep. 8, 2026).*
Defendant’s effort to inject a reasonable expectation of privacy into a dog sniff because detection of some drugs could reveal a medical condition is rejected. United States v. Ostertag, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27550 (10th Cir. Sep. 8, 2026).*
The state conceded standing [but apparently shouldn’t have], but defendant’s girlfriend consented to the search of the premises. Sisson v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 300 (Sep. 4, 2026).*
“The trial court found that ‘the totality of the circumstances’ and the holding in Greider mandated suppression because asking Fuchs to roll down his window converted the consensual welfare check into an unlawful investigatory stop. We disagree.” State v. Fuchs, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 6941 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep. 9, 2026).
A smoked blunt that appeared to be that and not just a smoked-down cigar is probable cause. “We emphasize that questions of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment are inherently ‘fact-specific.’ Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) (Robinette II). Our decision today in no way creates a carte blanche broad sanctioning of all future seizures of plainly viewed cigars, smoked or unsmoked. Our opinion today simply confirms that where, as here, the intrinsic character of a smoked-down cigar stub preserved on the passenger seat of a vehicle reasonably and immediately suggests its incriminating nature to officers inadvertently observing it during a lawful traffic stop, the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement may apply to permit officers to seize it.” State v. Barnes, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 402 (Sep. 4, 2026).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on FL2: Direction to roll down car window wasn’t seizure
The odor of burnt marijuana and visible marijuana is sufficient under federal law to establish probable cause. United States v. Brewer, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197712 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 1, 2026).
Defendant’s Franks challenge that the CIs were liars fails–the challenge has to be against the affiant officers. United States v. Eaker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199645 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 3, 2026).*
The mission of this stop ended when the officer handed back the driver’s paperwork. He kept him talking, and it was not a detention by consent. After refusing a consent search, defendant was allowed to leave. The officer radioed others to watch out for defendant’s car. An hour later, defendant was stopped again for a traffic infraction. The questions there led to reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff. United States v. Pennington, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 27403 (7th Cir. Sep. 4, 2026) (2-1).*
Defendant was on high intensity supervision with GPS for his current conviction, but he hadn’t yet been sentenced. Officers didn’t need a warrant to obtain his GPS data. “This case involves a defendant who had been adjudicated guilty, and PSA was responsible for supervising his compliance with release conditions, which generally include a prohibition against violating the law and in this case included GPS monitoring.” White v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 311 (Sep. 3, 2026).
Trial courts have the discretion to reopen suppression hearings, despite the rules and statutes not saying so. Failure to reopen is not an appealable order. State v. Holt, 2026 Minn. App. LEXIS 369 (Sep. 1, 2026).*
An officer doesn’t need a tint meter reading before making a stop. It need only be a reasonable observation. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198735 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 2, 2026).*
The affidavit for warrant was particular and described the whole house. While others lived there, the affidavit showed reason to believe defendant was in control of the whole place. United States v. Mannan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199195 (D.N.J. Sep. 2, 2026).*
Officers called a state’s attorney for advice on a BAC blood draw and were told to get a warrant. After waiting two hours, they decided they had exigent circumstances. Suppressed and affirmed. State v. Marlin, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 6797 (Fla. 4th DCA Sep. 2, 2026).
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment challenge, even though other circuits in similar cases would have granted relief. United States v. Polk, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26986 (3d Cir. Sep. 2, 2026).*
2255 petitioner litigated his searches pretrial. His 2255 request for search inventories is moot. Lettieri v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197845 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2026).*
Jailer seeing plaintiff sitting on toilet doesn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim. Jackson v. Deplatchett, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197922 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2026).*
Defendant was seriously injured in a car wreck and was at best semi-conscious. She could not consent to a DUI blood draw. Suppression order affirmed. State v. Laroque, 2026 MT 209 (Sept. 1, 2026).
The totality of circumstances showed defendant consented to this search, including signing a consent form that said she had a constitutional right to refuse. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198735 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 2, 2026).*
A second DNA swab after the first was suppressed was based on an independent showing of probable cause and was not suppressed in defendant’s retrial. Commonwealth v. Pinney, 107 Mass. App. Ct. 220 (Sep. 2, 2026).*
The search warrant recognized that this was a two-family residence, but the affidavit showed probable cause for the whole place. United States v. Mannan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199195 (D.N.J. Sep. 2, 2026).*
Florida has constitutional and statutory public records laws. A target of a search doesn’t have a Fourth Amendment right to prevent public disclosure of the product of a search of his place and things even when the search was unlawful. Fla. Ctr. for Gov’t Accountability, Inc. v. Ziegler, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 6756 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep. 2, 2026):
In this 2255, petitioner doesn’t get discovery of his search warrant materials. “The Government responds that Wilson ‘has failed to provide good cause as to why he is entitled to the materials that he requests’ and instead, he ‘only speculates and makes general arguments that the requested [documents] ‘may’ have a relevance to his § 2255 motion.’ … Again, Wilson’s motion fails to show good cause for discovery as required by Rule 6. Instead, he speculates that the requested categories of documents ‘may’ be relevant to his motion … which is insufficient. Accordingly, this motion is denied.” Wilson v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197596 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 1, 2026).
A prison gave information that defendant was trafficking drugs. A tracking warrant was obtained for his vehicle. While following it, defendant was stopped for a traffic offense and he had meth in the front seat. The tracking warrant was issued with probable cause, and the good faith exception applied in any event. United States v. Ray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197147 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 1, 2026).*
“[T]he Court finds that none of the alleged statements or omissions Irizarry has identified are false, misleading, or evince reckless disregard on the part of Officer Rasile. Thus, the Court need not engage in the exercise of analyzing a hypothetical corrected affidavit.” United States v. Irizarry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197354 (D. Conn. Sep. 1, 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.
