A violation of the knock-and-announce statute for serving search warrants doesn’t require exclusion of the evidence under Hudson, which is followed. State v. Times, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 982 (June 25, 2026).
“Idling” is not a crime for a passenger vehicle in D.C., but that was the reason for the stop. The search of the cupholder was not for alleged missing paperwork for registration, so the search is suppressed. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140305 (D.D.C. June 24, 2026).*
Defendant’s throwing a satchel in a parking lot as he was being detained by the police was abandonment. United States v. Taylor, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139563 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2026).*
Even if there was false information in the arrest warrant application, removing it still leaves probable cause. Majors v. City of West Des Moines, 24-3189 (8th Cir. June 25, 2026).*
Taking defendant’s blood for DUI at the station house by warrant when he was in a restraint chair didn’t make the search unreasonable. Hildebrandt v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 5866 (Tex. App. – Austin June 25, 2026).
A Ring doorbell camera should have caught these events, but it was missing. Police used a search warrant to Ring to get the video from the cloud. State v. Guccione , 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1233 (La. App. 3 Cir. June 17, 2026).*
“Overall, the district court concluded that the search of the vehicle was lawful under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment because Mr. Lindsey ‘refused to pull over immediately despite several opportunities to do so; the police observed [him] make furtive movements as if hiding objects; [he] made a left turn, slowed, and accelerated as if looking for a place to bail and run; [he] refused to speak to the officers when they first approached his vehicle; [he] fumbled with his keys and restarted his engine before turning it off again; and [he] spontaneously disclaimed ownership of the vehicle when the police stated their intent to search it.’” United States v. Lindsey, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18423 (11th Cir. June 24, 2026).* [Watch some sovereign citizen traffic stops on YouTube. Refusal to open the door or roll down the window is common. Here, doing that contributed to reasonable suspicion defendant was armed or had contraband.]
Defendant objected to admission of his vehicle’s black box (event data recorder) for lack of a warrant. The state produced the warrant and affidavit in support. The trial court admitted the warrant but not the affidavit. Without it, defendant can’t argue on appeal the affidavit didn’t support the warrant. It was his duty to make the record and get the affidavit (or at least try) into evidence at the suppression hearing. Stuart v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 5852 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) June 25, 2026).
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls she received. United States v. Young, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140423 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2026).*
Defendant was an overnight guest with standing to challenge this search, despite the fact he was a sex offender unable to reside near a day care. The wrongful presence cases do not apply to just being nearby. United States v. Morgan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140298 (C.D. Ill. June 24, 2026).
A search warrant isn’t invalid just because the issuing magistrate previously represented the defendant in a drug case as a defense lawyer. The judge didn’t violate the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct either. Besides, the good faith exception applies because the warrant is based on controlled buys. Moore v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137779 (N.D. Ala. June 22, 2026).
Appellant is a former police officer convicted of coercing an arrestee into sex. His claim the search warrant was invalid under Franks was conclusory and doesn’t show that probable cause would be “defeated.” United States v. Vanderpool, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17572 (4th Cir. June 17, 2026).*
The omission of some information from the affidavit had no effect on the probable cause. Lawyer v. State, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 569 (June 25, 2026).* Concurring opinion: When the defendant is in violation of a no contact order, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that place. Lawyer v. State, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 572 (June 25, 2026).*
The Guardian: ‘We should be worried’: report sheds light on ICE’s booming arsenal of hi-tech surveillance tools by Sanya Mansoor (“A new report sheds light on the unprecedented growth of the US government’s immigration surveillance arsenal, revealing fresh details about how spending on technology and AI tools to find and track migrants has soared to record levels during Donald Trump’s second term. The report, released this week, analyzed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contracts with 11 companies the authors said provide surveillance tech. They found the money awarded to these firms doubled from 2024 to 2025, to just over $310m – and in 2026, that number soared to a record $513m. Researchers traced these contracts as far back as 2013, when they hovered under $50m, and found a steady increase over time – with a bigger jump over the last two years. The report notes this new growth is primarily driven by huge new contracts for Palantir, a data analytics company that is central to ICE’s enforcement operations, as well as Anduril, a defense company that has built AI-powered surveillance systems, tech-infused border towers, drones and sensors.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on The Guardian: ‘We should be worried’: report sheds light on ICE’s booming arsenal of hi-tech surveillance tools
An AUSA can write a search warrant application summarizing what he or she knows from the investigation even though it includes some conclusions. It’s based here on facts the government believes it can prove. In re Larksuktom, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137544 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 2026):
There is no right to quash a warrant under the Stored Communications Act before execution. Any remedy is after execution. United States v. Kim, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138072 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2026):
Defendant argues the search warrant was based on speculation, but it wasn’t. United States v. Savage, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138078 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2026)*:
Narcotics officers had more than just race of the suspects in making this stop. They developed reasonable suspicion. United States v. Woods, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138100 (D. Mont. June 22, 2026)*:
The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was issued in December 2024 for alleged crimes in April and May 2023. There was still probable cause despite the possibility that defendant had a different phone by then. The search was based on the number called, owned by defendant since 2021, and texted by co-defendants after the search of their phone records. United States v. Newton, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105207 (M.D. Pa. May 13, 2026) (Essentially, this was a staleness argument because defendant could have had a different phone by the time of the search.):
CNS: SCOTUS won’t review role of race in police stops by Kelsey Reichmann (“The Trump administration asked the justices to prohibit courts from considering race as a relevant factor under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘free to leave’ test.”)
Posted inPretext|Comments Off on CNS: SCOTUS won’t review role of race in police stops
Social media search warrant for defendant’s Facebook account was invalid because there was no indication that he communicated with his sex assault victims through it. People v. Van Eck, 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 1043 (June 11, 2026) (unpublished):
Looking over a fence into plaintiff’s yard violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. Henry v. Pinal Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97301 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2026).
Defendant was arrested on an outstanding murder warrant, and the vehicle he was in was subject to a search incident. He claimed that the warrant could have been executed before he got in the car, but the Fourth Amendment doesn’t require that. United States v. Turner, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136080 (E.D. Mo. May 8, 2026).*
Defendant’s stop was based in part on an anonymous tip through a drug hotline, but the officer had more: high crime area, time of day, unusual activity, suspiciously hanging out. State v. Jackson, 2026-Ohio-2302, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2281 (7th Dist. June 10, 2026).*
There was probable cause for search of defendant’s house for clothing that was worn in the crime. What happens outside the house can create an inference that what’s sought is inside. (The good faith exception would also apply.) United States v. Joyner, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136993 (D.D.C. June 19, 2026).
Defendant had no standing or reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone records of another person. United States v. Tabbs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137165 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2026).*
Defendants were suspected of transporting drugs from Los Angeles to Nashville by airplane. When the plane arrived in Nashville, a drug dog alerted on their checked luggage. The bags were sent to the luggage carousel. When they retrieved their bags, the officers stopped them to talk, and they both consented to opening the suitcases. United States v. McCain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136086 (E.D. Mo. May 8, 2026).*
The warrant for defendant’s residence was based on an affidavit that provided a minimally sufficient nexus between the offenses under investigation and the need to search the home, and the officers acted in good-faith reliance on the warrant. Also, two text messages referencing a drug transaction sent to defendant during the execution of the search warrant was admissible because they directly proved that defendant had the intent and knowledge to sell the drugs he possessed on that day, a necessary element to establish the charged offenses. State v. Madaris, 2026-Ohio-2305, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2280 (1st Dist. June 18, 2026).
“Johnson further contends that the search warrant and arrest warrant were issued without probable cause and that the supporting affidavits omitted material information and were therefore constitutionally defective. … These claims are barred from federal habeas review.” Stone v. Powell. Johnson v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136365 (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2026).*
An Uber delivery driver died on the job, and California OSHA sought records. Uber refused. OSHA subpoenaed them. OSHA has the power to subpoena records related to the death because it’s within its remit, but this one is overbroad and needs to be narrowed. Remanded. Div. of Occupational Safety & Health v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 375 (2d Dist. June 18, 2026).*
“The totality of the circumstances outlined in Inspector Coyt’s affidavit provided the magistrate judge sufficient basis to find probable cause. Inspector Coyt presented mutually reinforcing pieces of information: drug-package profile factors, including shipment from a known source state, return address irregularities, person-to-person addressing, and payment by cryptocurrency; a known informant tip—Inspector Coyt knew the source’s identity, spoke with the source, and confirmed the source’s report that packages were being shipped to Wilson from Florida through USPS records; a prior search of the same address that yielded methamphetamine; and since that prior search, a history of 40 packages shipped to Wilson over two years from a source state, 16 with postage paid in cryptocurrency.” United States v. Wilson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136112 (W.D. Ky. June 18, 2026).* [Clearly probable cause. Not even close.]
Defendant was the subject of an NIT (Playpen) search warrant years ago and was convicted. In a successor habeas he argues that “ChatGPT’s ‘opinion’ that the magistrate judge participated in a crime by issuing the NIT warrant does not make Jones’s proposed claim newly discovered.” It’s not. He always knew about the Playpen warrant. In re Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17669 (6th Cir. June 17, 2026).
Probable cause was shown for this warrant for information on defendant’s cash app and social media accounts in a drug case. There is probable cause on the totality. “Her complaints focus on what is not contained in the Affidavits rather than considering how the information demonstrates the supportive role Bogan is alleged to have played in the conspiracy. It is not necessary for a participant in a drug trafficking conspiracy to be directly involved in acquiring or delivering the controlled substances.” United States v. Bogan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136564 (E.D. Mo. May 8, 2026).*
The Tribe stated a Fourth Amendment claim against the county officials for executing an allegedly overbroad search warrant aimed at the Tribe’s cannabis operations on the reservation. The county alleged also that earthmoving work on the reservation was detrimental to the county. Round Valley Indian Tribes v. Kendall, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134356 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2026)*:
Warrantless entry to detain a DUI suspect was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Claiming exigency isn’t enough. State v. Beasley, 2026 Del. C.P. LEXIS 8 (Del. C.P. June 16, 2026).
This defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in someone else’s apartment that was a stash house. United States v. Davis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134288 (D. Neb. June 1, 2026).*
There were factual disputes for trial in the excessive force case, so appeal dismissed. Jones v. Kulesa, No. 25-1216 (8th Cir. June 18, 2026).*
Excessive window tint justified this stop. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133890 (E.D. Tenn. June 16, 2026).*
The search target’s shooting death case can proceed on an excessive force claim and failure to properly announce entry in an ATF raid. Malinowski v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134589 (E.D. Ark. June 17, 2026).
“Harris fails to meet his burden showing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy to the vehicle that was stopped and searched. Indeed, in his motion to suppress, he acknowledges he was not present at the scene of the car search, that the van did not belong to him, and that he did not personally own the van that was stopped and searched.” United States v. Harris, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93046 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2026)*
Staying in a hotel room gives standing to challenge the room safe. The cotenant has actual authority to consent to the search. (It is unnecessary to consider the probation search exception.) United States v. Graham, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132766 (W.D. Va. June 15, 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.
