As to the stop of the vehicle: “The objective and articulable facts set forth above supported the officers’ belief that the Buick was either the lookout vehicle or the vehicle transporting the narcotics and gave rise to reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. As such, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when the officers conducted a traffic stop of the Buick.” “Birkla primarily seeks suppression of any evidence of his presence at the scene of the traffic stop. This poses an interesting question. Are identity and presence suppressible fruits? As explained below, the answer is ‘no,’ and because Birkla’s Fourth Amendment rights were not otherwise infringed, the Court will DENY Defendant Birkla’s Motion.” United States v. Birkla, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132299 (E.D. Ky. June 15, 2026).*
“[T]he search warrants for his location data and Facebook records were supported by probable cause. … [H]e has not made an initial showing that the affidavits for the search warrants contained reckless and material omissions, so he is not entitled to a Franks hearing.” Motion to suppress denied. United States v. Leiva-Leiva, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132900 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2026).*
There was exigency for entry into defendant’s home when a missing autistic 14 year old’s cell phone was pinging at defendant’s address and there was no answer to the phone. Officers don’t have to wait for the exigency to get worse before acting. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132833 (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2026):
The smell of marijuana is probable cause even if none is found in the subsequent search. The absence of marijuana only mitigates the probable cause, not eliminate it. United States v. Loveings, No. 25-2002, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17330 (3d Cir. June 16, 2026).
This warrant was particular. It specified a cell phone was to be seized. State v. Bourque, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1188 (La. App. 1 Cir June 15, 2026).*
The government’s late filed certification for an interlocutory appeal of a suppression order was objected to by the defense. The motion to dismiss is denied, and the case will proceed to the merits. United States v. Robinson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17334 (2d Cir. June 16, 2026).*
Defendant’s DNA left at the scene of two rapes was abandoned, and the state didn’t need a warrant to search it. People v. Konther, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 369 (4th Dist. June 12, 2026).
In a drug case bench trial, the judge is presumed not to imply guilt from the existence of a search warrant. State v. Stallworth, 2026-Ohio-2242, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2214 (3d Dist. June 15, 2026).*
Officers had probable cause to believe defendant was in his girlfriend’s high-rise apartment when they came with an arrest warrant. They didn’t find him, but a sweep revealed a gun under a mattress. That led to a search warrant. “The Court rules that the officers had a reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Burch was inside the apartment, and that their discovery of the pistol under the bed was the product of a reasonable search for Mr. Burch and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, despite its many errors, made with reckless disregard for the truth, the Court finds that the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant still supports a finding of probable cause. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion in full.” United States v. Burch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132653 (N.D. Ill. June 15, 2026).*
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and he had an open container in violation of D.C. law. That justified a search incident of the area around him, including a backpack. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131891 (D.D.C. June 12, 2026).
Probable cause to arrest for any offense defeats a malicious prosecution claim. Atsas v. Bowen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17161 (6th Cir. June 11, 2026).*
“Here, the Fifth Circuit case of United States v. Hernandez controls the outcome: the tip in this case had the requisite indicia of reliability, and the totality of the circumstances in which the tip was relayed to Agent D.B. provide the degree of suspicion needed for the stop. An individualized assessment of the Brignoni-Ponce factors also leads the Court to the same conclusion. Thus, the Court finds that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and, thus, there is no constitutional violation meriting the suppression of evidence that Wanzo seeks.” United States v. Wanzo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132042 (W.D. Tex. June 12, 2026).*
To arrest the defendant on a warrant and with a search warrant, the SWAT team surrounded his house. They used a robot, drone, tear gas, and a flash bang sent into the apartment. He finally came out and surrendered. Despite alleged false statements in the paperwork, the arrest was reasonable. “We will affirm the judgment because we agree with the Attorney General that the trial court incorrectly traversed the arrest warrant because the warrant affidavit still set forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause even after the false statements were excised. Therefore the police lawfully could arrest defendant in his home or by forcing him from it, as they did.” People v. Hayes, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 368 (1st Dist. June 12, 2026).
Defendant’s vehicle was lawfully stopped, and it was extended by reasonable suspicion. When the dog alerted, the car was towed for a later search. The dog alert was probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Christian, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131095 (W.D. Pa. June 12, 2026).*
Defendant was approached by police and they talked. He wasn’t seized until he was tripped trying to get away. United States v. Wilson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131275 (D.N.J. June 12, 2026).*
“Where the only witness testifying that defendant was an overnight guest (1) initially denied knowing defendant on the day of arrest, (2) had a prior conviction for filing a false police report, (3) could not provide basic information about defendant despite claiming longtime friendship and gang affiliation, and (4) no other household residents knew defendant despite his purported multiple stays, the district court did not clearly err in finding defendant was not an overnight guest and thus lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the bedroom search. Motion to suppress properly denied.” (Lexis summary) United States v. Gatkuoth, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16408 (8th Cir. June 8, 2026).
The officer coming to defendant’s home was told there was an arrest warrant for her. The warrant wasn’t put into evidence, but it’s not otherwise disputed. The entry on the arrest warrant was valid. Defendant tried to flee in the house. People v. Warren, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4962 (June 12, 2026).*
Even if the Fourth Amendment was violated apprehending an undocumented person, habeas corpus is not available. Velasquez v. Warden S. La. ICE Processing Ctr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131828 (W.D. La. May 7, 2026).*
Despite the local police having no formal impoundment policy, defendant’s vehicle was impounded with their permission and inventoried by the FBI. The impoundment was still reasonable. United States v. Richards, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126028 (D. Mass. June 8, 2026).
Maryland has well developed case law on “sexually invasive searches,” which was at issue here. In a long, comprehensive, and unpublished opinion, “On balance, we conclude that, although intrusive and demeaning like any sexually invasive search, the reach-in search at issue was reasonable and did not violate Smith’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.” Smith v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 674 (June 10, 2026) (unpublished).*
Maryland passed comprehensive firearm carry legislation after Bruen. It permitted the carrying of a firearm with a permit, but not open carry. An officer watching surveillance video saw defendant display his gun. Other officers were dispatched, and they frisked him. There was reasonable suspicion for the stop because he displayed the gun. He was a felon in possession. United States v. Fallin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129960 (D. Md. June 11, 2026).*
“Possession of recreational marijuana may be legal in Missouri, but ‘[o]perating or being in physical control of any motor vehicle … while under the influence of marijuana’ is not. Mo. Const. art. XIV § 2(3)(1)(d). Considering the strong odor of marijuana Officer Perkins smelled coming from Drake’s vehicle, as well as his evasive and erratic behavior during the stop, we conclude Officer Perkins could have reasonably believed he would discover evidence that Drake had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana by searching his car. Consequently, Perkins had probable cause to search Drake’s vehicle under the automobile exception.” United States v. Drake, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16415 (8th Cir. June 8, 2026).
Defendant was surveilled because of an outstanding Idaho warrant, then an in-state warrant. The state’s higher privacy rights were not violated. Reasonable suspicion developed for his detention. Ultimately, he consented to a search by agreeing officers could look at his stuff. People v. Reyes, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4961 (June 12, 2026).*
Failure to read a warrant before execution isn’t a Fourth Amendment violation without an overseizure. The cell phone warrant here had search of the cell phone crossed out, permitting only seizure at first. The executing officers didn’t know it had been limited, but they didn’t exceed its scope. Thus, the contents of the phone were not suppressed when they were obtained by a later warrant. United States v. Hampton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16915 (2d Cir. June 11, 2026):
Regulatory inspections of cannabis stores is reasonable and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. They are closely regulated under Burger, and the extent of inspections is limited. Matter of Super Smoke N Save LLC v. N.Y. State Cannabis Control Bd., 2026 NY Slip Op 03715, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3894 (3rd Dept. June 11, 2026):
It was not objectively reasonable for officers to believe that defendant’s blue bag was abandoned property when it was searched. They didn’t even have a good faith belief it was abandoned, so the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Taumua, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127559 (D. Haw. June 9, 2026)*:
The defense attorney’s affidavit for defendant’s Franks motion is insufficient because he had no direct knowledge. There was probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Rosario, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125981 (D.R.I. June 8, 2026).
Protective sweep for a firearm where the defendant admitted having a gun inside was proper. Also, he was under surveillance for months and a search warrant would have issued if sought. United States v. Sayles, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125722 (D. Me. June 8, 2026).*
Defendant’s car had a tracking warrant, and then a plain view justified an automobile exception search. United States v. Cervantes, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126159 (S.D. Ohio June 8, 2026).*
Philadelphia Inquirer: Two Philadelphia police officers stopped hundreds of Black men on the street. Lawyers say the stops were illegal and racially biased. by Jillian Kramer (“Prosecutors have dismissed at least 24 firearms cases after defense lawyers challenged the legality of stops conducted by two Philadelphia police officers who they say systematically targeted Black men for unlawful searches. Lawyers with the Defender Association of Philadelphia say former partners August Gershwin and John Lee initiated hundreds of pedestrian investigations in Northwest Philadelphia without sufficient legal justification — ordering Black men to submit to searches during interactions that were supposed to be voluntary, delaying activation of body-worn cameras until after stops were underway, and rarely documenting investigations unless they yielded illegal guns or contraband.”)
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Pretext, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on Philadelphia Inquirer: Two Philadelphia police officers stopped hundreds of Black men on the street. Lawyers say the stops were illegal and racially biased.
Reason: Iowa Man Seen in Viral Body Camera Footage Wins $105,000 Wrongful Arrest Lawsuit by Autumn Billings (“After nearly four years of legal battles, Tayvin Galanakis has finally won his case against the officers who arrested him for allegedly driving while intoxicated without probable cause.” .000 BAC, zero drugs in his system. “A federal jury in Iowa awarded $105,000 to a former college student late last week after officers wrongfully arrested him for driving under the influence without probable cause. The award comes nearly four years since the Fourth Amendment-violating traffic stop went viral. On a rainy night in August 2022, Tayvin Galanakis, a then-19-year-old member of the William Penn University football team, was stopped by officers in Newton, Iowa, for driving with his high beams on within city limits. Body camera footage of the stop shows Galanakis explain that he was using his high beams because one of his headlights was out and turning them off when other cars approached.”)
Wired: Wrongful Arrest Exposes Failures in One of the Oldest Police Face-Recognition Tools in the US by Dell Cameron (“A Florida man was wrongfully arrested for attempting to illegally lure a child after police relied on a face-recognition match that was inaccurate, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday, even though he lived more than 300 miles from the scene and says he had never set foot in the city where the crime took place. Robert Dillon, a 52-year-old commercial crabber from Fort Myers, was arrested after FACES—a face-recognition system operated by Florida’s Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office—matched his face against a photo of a man on a computer screen taken with a cell phone. The system returned a ’93 percent match on facial features,’ according to police-investigatory notes. The scores it emits represent how much two images look alike to the algorithm. Not how likely it is that they show the same person. FACES holds tens of millions of Florida mug shots and driver’s license photos and is one of the longest-running police face-recognition databases in the United States.”)
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on Wired: Wrongful Arrest Exposes Failures in One of the Oldest Police Face-Recognition Tools in the US
There was reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff during this stop based on prior knowledge, a GPS placed with a prior warrant, and APLR reports of where the vehicle was that day showing it went where expected for alleged drug pickups. United States v. Norton, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125671 (W.D. Mo. May 13, 2026).
“Moore’s unusual lack of knowledge of his own purported and highly regulated [trucking] profession, coupled with the overwhelming odor of two known masking agents, provided Trooper Koeberl with reasonable suspicion to suspect that Moore was engaged in unlawful activity. Trooper Koeberl was therefore entitled to extend the traffic stop by 15 minutes to investigate Moore’s travels.” United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124571 (D. Minn. June 5, 2026).*
The fact defendant’s DNA swab wasn’t taken for many months was not a Fourth Amendment violation, and the good faith exception would apply in any event. United States v. Harris, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124807 (N.D. Ill. June 5, 2026).*
If defendant testifies at the suppression hearing to show his reasonable expectation of privacy, he opens the door to being asked about whether the drugs were his and his full association with the room [despite Simmons, which is not even mentioned]. He cannot be asked about criminal history [despite impeachment for prior conviction?]. United States v. Story, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126166 (D.S.D. June 4, 2026):
Posted inAdmissibility of evidence|Comments Off on D.S.D.: If def testifies to show standing, he can be asked about his association with the drugs found
Defendant’s backpack is not as much a personal repository as a wallet or purse. When officers ordered the occupants out of the car, the backpack was at defendant’s feet, and he was ordered to leave it behind. The inventory was valid. Officer safety was also a valid concern–the backpack could have contained a weapon. People v. Wallace, 2026 IL App (4th) 250795, 2026 Ill. App. LEXIS 193 (June 5, 2026).
Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not filing a frivolous Franks motion. United States v. Jenkins, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125318 (N.D. Ind. June 5, 2026).*
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment civil claim was over seven years being filed, thus four years past limitations. McBee v. Battle, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125706 (W.D. Ark. June 8, 2026).*
Uncounseled at the hospital, defendant gave up the passcode to his cell phone to police. Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging that. Houbbadi v. State, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 344 (June 5, 2026).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Inventory, Reasonableness|Comments Off on IL: A backpack is not as personal a repository of stuff as a purse or wallet; officers ordered it left in vehicle for safety reasons and it was inventoried
"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.
