Plaintiff was subjected to an electronic body scan that led to a body cavity search with a warrant for an apparent mass inside him. This search was reasonable. Brown v. Suess, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220823 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2026).
Facial biometric scans of inmates in a jail violate no privacy interest. Jones v. Mata, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220261 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 24, 2026).
A suspicionless GPS search condition for a probationer was reasonable. United States v. Taplin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220219 (D. Or. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Given the trial court found the officer not credible, on these facts, the order of suppression is affirmed. State v. Caughenbaugh, 2026-Ohio-3809 (5th Dist. Sep. 25, 2026).*
The fact there were ex parte communications with a judge about a wiretap warrant doesn’t require recusal of the judge. United States v. Kobayashi, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220121 (D. Haw. Sep. 28, 2026).
Plaintiff can’t show causation for his alleged injury from excessive force, so summary judgment for the officer. Brown v. Inglehart, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219722 (E.D. Ark. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit over his arrest is barred by Younger abstention because he can raise all those issues in state court first. Anderson v. Price, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219763 (W.D.Ark. Sep. 28, 2026).*
Plaintiff plausibly alleged a bogus traffic stop and so the frisk lacked reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. This is clearly established law. Rosales v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29016 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026). (Reason article here.)
Any possible error in finding defendant’s firearm under the public safety exception to Miranda wa harmless. State v. Crawford, 2026 MT 225 (Sep. 22, 2026).*
“We agree with the issuing judge that both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test were satisfied by the affidavit in this case. We therefore affirm the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause and the issuance of the warrant to search Defendant’s home, and reverse the district court’s contrary conclusion.” There was a Franks challenge, too, and, while there were no good findings on that from the trial court, the court of appeals independently doesn’t find them material to probable cause. State v. Sneed, 2026 N.M. App. LEXIS 69 (Sep. 28, 2026).*
Investigators in Pennsylvania could rely on another investigator at UCLA and combine their information for probable cause. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29575 (3d Cir. Sep. 25, 2026).
Petitioner’s 2255 Franks challenge fails to “plausibly allege” falsity. Godette v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219305 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 25, 2026).*
“[O]fficers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching Medrano with their weapons drawn and ready to use. While the Officers used a high level of force, they reasonably believed that Medrano may have committed multiple serious offenses, posed a threat to their safety, and was actively on the run from a felony arrest warrant and may again attempt to flee. Accordingly, the Officers’ use of force under these circumstances was reasonable and did not violate Medrano’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Medrano v. Acosta, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29486 (9th Cir. Sep. 25, 2026).*
Reason: Border Agents Search Phones Without Warrants. This Case Asks the Supreme Court if That’s Constitutional by Tosin Akintola (“Federal appeals courts differ on whether the Fourth Amendment protects your cellphone at the border. A Texas lawyer is asking the Supreme Court to settle it.”) (“What started as a ‘narrow constitutional exception’ now ‘threatens to swallow the protection it was meant only to qualify,’ according to an amicus brief filed last week by the Cato Institute asking the Supreme Court to reconsider a petition about warrantless searches of Americans at the border. The petitioner is George Anibowei, a Texas-based immigration attorney who has, on five separate occasions when traveling internationally, been stopped and had his phone searched at the border by federal agents. The law gives agents the authority to seize and search property—including cellphones and other electronic devices—without a warrant and without suspicion when crossing a border. Federal courts have upheld this policy under the border search exception—which defers to the sovereign’s right to protect itself and requires no warrant, probable cause, or suspicion for a search—and have extended the exception to include the contents of a person’s cellphone.”) Probability of a cert grant? High.
Posted inBorder search, Cell phones|Comments Off on Reason: Border Agents Search Phones Without Warrants. This Case Asks the Supreme Court if That’s Constitutional
The Economist: Why licence-plate readers are angering Americans (“ALPRs are not new: local governments have long used them to collect tolls and enforce traffic laws. More recently, activists on the left protested against their use by federal immigration authorities. Donald Trump, on the other hand, says he likes Flock because it helps law enforcement. Yet the uproar has escalated quickly, echoing the outcry over data centres. ALPRs and data centres have both scaled up quickly and become symbols of anxiety about AI … Flock claims to have aided 10,000 missing-person cases last year. But its network of ALPRs ‘goes far beyond what people previously understood the tools to be’, argues Melissa Owen of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers. Cops do not need warrants to look up plates, and state laws vary on how officers log searches, how long data can be stored and whether footage can be sent to other states.”)
A typo in the affidavit for warrant including murder as one of the crimes under investigation could be overlooked. United States v. Pokorny, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217899 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2026).
Patdown searches are a part of institutional living for civilly committed SVPs. Welsh v. Management & Training, Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217569 (N.D. Tex. July 29, 2026).*
“[T]he court determined that Brice was entitled to qualified immunity because Hecke failed to identify precedent clearly establishing that a forensic examiner violates the Fourth Amendment by relying on a signed attestation from another officer affirming the legality of a search. The court found further support for this conclusion under the collective knowledge doctrine, which permits law-enforcement officers to rely on facts supplied by other officers to support a search or arrest of a suspect even if the officer himself lacks firsthand knowledge of facts that amount to requisite level of suspicion.” Hecke v. Comm’r of Ind. State Police, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29421 (7th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026).*
The exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone pending getting a warrant was risk of destruction of evidence. State v. Laflex, 2026 Minn. LEXIS 592 (Sep. 23, 2026).
Furtive movements add to reasonable suspicion. Ex parte Lucio, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 905 n. 303 (Sep. 24, 2026).
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention aside from the traffic stop based on collective knowledge he was attempting to purchase drugs. The dog sniff thereafter was reasonable. United States v. French, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217063 (E.D. La. Sep. 24, 2026).*
US Postal Inspectors checked the addresses on the package which proved likely bogus, and that gave reasonable suspicion to remove it from the mail stream for a dog sniff. State v. Wescott, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 446 (Sep. 18, 2026).*
“We hold that the use of the cell-site simulator constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. We conclude, however, that the detectives are entitled to qualified immunity and state law public official immunity, and that the Baltimore City Police Department cannot be held liable for the violation of Andrews’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Andrews v. Balt. City Police Dep’t, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29401 (4th Cir. Sep. 24, 2026):
Bailbonding agent’s bounty hunters were not state actors in capturing defendant and searching his car. State v. Dragg, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 637 (Sep. 24, 2026).
Defendant’s post-conviction petition argues defense counsel applied the wrong standard of review but it doesn’t matter because he would lose anyway. Kim v. Brown, 2026 Ore. App. LEXIS 1472 (Sep. 10, 2026).*
The additional ¾ hour to 2 hours to get a search warrant for defendant’s blood here was exigency. State v. Adams, 2026 Ore. App. LEXIS 1427 (Sep. 23, 2026).*
Defendant was in custody at the time he was told to raise his seat cushion. It wasn’t voluntary consent–it was acquiescence to authority. United States v. Barron, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29273 (9th Cir. Sep. 24, 2026).*
The court of appeals applied the wrong standard for harm analysis from an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. The alleged illegal search of his electronics didn’t have that much to do with the fact defendant was convicted of smothering his child. Staley v. State, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 897 (Sep. 24, 2026)*:
In Bonta v. Bianco, S295901 (Cal. Sep. 24, 2026), the California Supreme Court dealt with two search warrants to seize ballots from a prior election. The AG of California ordered the return of the ballots because the warrant application specified no crime under investigation.
“The Warrant specifies the goal is ‘to conduct a search of the residence that was used by the offenders on the day of the homicide, to recover any and all firearms, black hooded sweatshirt, black jacket, black sweatpants with reflective patch on left leg, white/gray sneakers, all latent print and DNA evidence, all cell phones, computers, tablets, and other digital evidence including video DVR systems and other video recording devices in order to identify communications between conspirators and their movements the day of the murder.’ Ogden Street Warrant, …. The Ogden Street Warrant therefore described with sufficient particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized.” United States v. Stallworth, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215728 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 23, 2026).*
Raising particularity in half of one sentence of argument isn’t a presentation of the issue. Walker v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 301 (Sep. 22, 2026).
Defendant admitted that marijuana might be in the car, so the smell of marijuana which defendant argued could have been hemp was still probable cause. State v. Bishop, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 629 (Sep. 22, 2026).*
An arrest without probable cause is obviously clearly established law. Wilson v. McClure, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214963 (N.D. Miss. Sep. 22, 2026).*
Interlocutory appeal of the suppression order isn’t appropriate here. Defendant will get to appeal if convicted, and it’s moot if he’s acquitted. State v. Biller, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 631 (Sep. 23, 2026).*
Reason: Homeland Security Is Monitoring Activists Building Anti-Flock Tech by Daniel Boguslaw (“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fusion centers have started monitoring anti-surveillance activists, according to records obtained by Reason. An intelligence report compiled in Massachusetts and redistributed by a Wisconsin fusion center shows that the government is tracking online critics of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) like Flock Safety. Included among the critics is a website, SparrowMap, that uses ALPR technology to track police vehicles in real time.”)
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on Reason: Homeland Security Is Monitoring Activists Building Anti-Flock Tech
A defendant can’t repackage a losing Fourth Amendment standing claim into a due process claim, at least via a 2255. United States v. Vega, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214580 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 22, 2026):
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that a warrant was required for a request for a cell phone password. No case anywhere says that’s required. Reynolds v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 303 (Sep. 22, 2026).
The inventory search of defendant’s satchel on his arrest was valid. United States v. Soto, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29000 (9th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026).*
Plaintiff’s decedent had a brain cancer tumor removed, and then rounds of drugs and chemo and that “fried his brain.” His erratic behavior led to him being shot by the police, and it was reasonable force at the time, and the officer gets qualified immunity. Callaway v. Adcock, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29086 (11th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026).*
Defendant doesn’t get to suppress the body cam of her detention where the officer told her to stand in one place and then she later assaulted the officer. It was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Ross v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 502 (Sep. 22, 2026).
“‘The possibility that an officer ultimately may prove to be mistaken or that there may be an innocent explanation for the facts giving rise to the officer’s suspicion does not negate, in and of itself, the officer’s reasonable, articulable suspicion.’” Fults v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 509 (Sep. 22, 2026).*
Defendant’s detention for safety reasons turned into a frisk for weapons based on reasonable suspicion from his actions and the time of day and it being a high crime area. Tyler v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 499 (Sep. 22, 2026).*
The suppression order for defendant on coerced consent is reversed. The trial court engaged in its own research into facts to make the decision on acquiring the affidavit for a later warrant, the distance between things, and the temperature at the time from the weather service. Defendant’s consent was not shown to be coerced to standing outside without a coat on a cold December night for roughly six minutes. State v. Romero, 2026 N.M. App. LEXIS 67 (Sep. 21, 2026) (see Model Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.9(C), statutory in New Mexico; see ABA Formal Opinion 478).
The search of defendant’s vehicle pursuant to state law probation search waiver statute was reasonably conducted and didn’t need reasonable suspicion. United States v. Wilson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213645 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 31, 2026).*
Defendant had his backpack searched under a probation waiver agreement. It was decided as a lack of standing below, which was kind of understandable because of language in some cases. Instead, it’s just a Fourth Amendment waiver, and the search was valid. State v. Al-Mafrachi, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 135 (Sep. 22, 2026).*
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers, geofence|Comments Off on Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules
"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.
