WaPo: Americans have turned against police cameras that track license plates, new survey shows

Posted on August 28, 2026 by Hall

WaPo: Americans have turned against police cameras that track license plates, new survey shows by Drew Harwell, Douglas MacMillan, Aaron Schaffer and Kevin Crowe (“Fearing the potential for invasive monitoring or abuse, more people now oppose law enforcement’s use of AI-powered cameras than support it, a new survey shows.” “More Americans now oppose law enforcement’s use of the technology than support it, a reversal from last year as a growing backlash raises concerns about its potential for invasive monitoring and police misuse.”)

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on WaPo: Americans have turned against police cameras that track license plates, new survey shows

W.D.Tex.: What is the duty of the neutral and detached magistrate?

Posted on August 28, 2026 by Hall

What is the duty of the neutral and detached magistrate? It’s explained in In re A Search of A Certain Apple iCloud Acct., 2026 WL 2534328, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193213 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2026):

Continue reading →
Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: What is the duty of the neutral and detached magistrate?

D.Me.: Yes, more investigation could have been done, but there’s still PC on what there was

Posted on August 28, 2026 by Hall

“With the benefit of advocacy and adversarial briefing, it is easy to look back over Special Agent Bell’s affidavit and reflect on the facts that are missing or additional investigative steps that could have been taken but were not. But the task before me is to evaluate the facts set out within the four corners of the affidavit and decide whether the Magistrate Judge had no substantial basis for concluding that probable cause had been met. Chiu, 36 F.4th at 297.” United States v. Bridges, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193226 (D. Me. Aug. 27, 2026).

Defendant’s claim he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle search is unpreserved. People v. Sessoms, 2026 NY Slip Op 05117 (2d Dept. Aug. 26, 2026).*

Plaintiff’s complaint against individuals at the University of California for judicial deception for a misleading affidavit for search warrant is barred by limitations. Generally, a person is usually on notice of the search when it happens. Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192985 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2026).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Waiver, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Me.: Yes, more investigation could have been done, but there’s still PC on what there was

CA3: Brady doesn’t apply to SW materials

Posted on August 28, 2026 by Hall

“Defendants also assert that the Government withheld impeaching information about Ferrante. Ferrante, however, did not testify at trial and only served as the affiant for a key search warrant. Brady does not entitle a defendant to disclosures of impeaching information as to a search warrant affiant. See Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809, 815-16 (6th Cir. 1998) (explaining distinction between duties under Brady and Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)); United States v. Banks, 104 F.4th 496, 509 n.3 (4th Cir. 2024) (‘We have never held that Brady and Giglio apply to evidence bearing on the warrant-application stage as opposed to evidence admitted at trial.’).” United States v. Miner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26233 (3d Cir. Aug. 27, 2026).

Defendant was alleged to have attempted to buy a mailbox key from a postal worker, and the postal worker described him. There was no photo array. Based on their investigation the Postal Inspector had enough for probable cause to show that it was defendant and supported the warrant for his place. He had no standing as to the cell phone in his girlfriend’s purse. United States v. Hudson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191779 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2026).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Due process, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: Brady doesn’t apply to SW materials

E.D.Mich.: Person a cell phone was given to as gift could consent to search

Posted on August 28, 2026 by Hall

Defendant gave an old cell phone to his niece. On it, she found child pornography, and she took it to the police who she showed images and texts. The officer didn’t search. She had apparent authority to consent to search of the phone. United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192542 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 26, 2026).

The search here occurred just before the Ohio courts started holding that the advent of recreational marijuana meant the smell of marijuana in a car wasn’t probable cause. The trial court didn’t rule on good faith, and it’s remanded to the trial court to determine that. State v. Anderson, 2026-Ohio-3329 (1st Dist. Aug. 26, 2026).*

There were two search warrants for two properties of defendant, and one the state wouldn’t rely on at trial. The affidavits were similar and supported each other. The state’s failure to put the one into evidence that didn’t matter to them didn’t justify suppressing the other. State v. Brooks, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1681 (La. App. 4 Cir Aug. 26, 2026).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Apparent authority, Cell phones, Consent, Good faith exception | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Person a cell phone was given to as gift could consent to search

CAAF: Information on computer stored in evidence room wasn’t stale

Posted on August 27, 2026 by Hall

The military judge erred in concluding that a search warrant for computer information became stale. It was essentially frozen without change while in the government’s custody. United States v. Armour, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 712 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 24, 2026).

There was probable cause for a DNA warrant based on a 22-page affidavit for defendant’s DNA after an extensive information and excluding his siblings. “These facts set forth in the affidavit, which were not easily obtained, corroborated the informant’s tip and provided sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s probable cause determination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Hollowell’s DNA results.” Hollowell v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 287 (Aug. 24, 2026).*

2255 petitioner’s petition with Fourth Amendment claims is denied on statute of limitations grounds. Harris v. Martin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190656 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2026).*

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, DNA, Staleness | Comments Off on CAAF: Information on computer stored in evidence room wasn’t stale

CAAF: SW’s incorporated affidavit satisfied particularity, reliance on CA10 case not CAAF case was error

Posted on August 27, 2026 by Hall

The military judge’s restrictive determination of particularity to exclude evidence while relying on a Tenth Circuit case instead of precedent from this court was an abuse of discretion. The incorporated affidavit was sufficient to show probable cause and particularity under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Ixcolgonzalez, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 711 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 24, 2026).

Defendant pro se didn’t complain that his standby counsel wasn’t present for his suppression hearing. Not preserved, and on plain error review, no error. United States v. Howard, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25880 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026).*

“[I]mmigration detention is civil in nature under these circumstances, and thus, the cases decided under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence are inapplicable. Zadvydas v. Davis, … (2001).” Doe v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190383 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2026).*

Posted in Immigration arrests, Military searches, Particularity | Comments Off on CAAF: SW’s incorporated affidavit satisfied particularity, reliance on CA10 case not CAAF case was error

CA10: Def’s BO suggesting heroin abuse added to RS

Posted on August 27, 2026 by Hall

The officer here detected defendant’s body odor as coming from heroin use, despite his lack of specific training. That was enough to order defendant out of the car and reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Marshall, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26025 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2026).

There was probable cause to arrest defendant for felon in possession. The witness was attempting to serve defendant with an order of protection, and defendant answered the door with a gun in hand. The witness told the police who ran defendant’s name and found he had a felony prior. That was probable cause. United States v. Payne, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189246 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2026).*

There was reasonable suspicion for detaining a package coming to defendant’s house. The government extensively investigated the package in the United States which was being internet tracked from Mexico. United States v. Torres, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25492 (8th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026).*

Posted in Mail and packages, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA10: Def’s BO suggesting heroin abuse added to RS

WaPo: They confided in ChatGPT. Their secrets ended up in court.

Posted on August 27, 2026 by Hall

WaPo: They confided in ChatGPT. Their secrets ended up in court. By Miriam Waldvogel
and Gerrit De Vynck:

Continue reading →
Posted in AI | Comments Off on WaPo: They confided in ChatGPT. Their secrets ended up in court.

CA6: No interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

Posted on August 27, 2026 by Hall

There is no interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to suppress in the federal system. United States v. Cox, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25677 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making a frivolous motion to suppress defendant’s probation search done by law enforcement rather than a PO. Rice v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189335 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2026).*

There was probable cause for the warrant for defendant’s house with nexus shown. United States v. Martinez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189964 (W.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2026).*

2255 petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to file a motion to suppress fails because there was no valid ground to grant any motion to suppress. United States v. Riley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190285 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2026).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Nexus | Comments Off on CA6: No interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

CA11: Service of SW without attachments isn’t 4A violation

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Hall

Defendant’s effort to subpoena five witnesses in support of his Franks challenge was properly denied. Their testimony would be material to the outcome, and they were also speculative. As to the execution of the warrant, the fact he got a copy of the warrant but without attachments isn’t a Fourth Amendment violation. (Defendant was suspected of using a computer to hack into an NFL game Jumbotron and the computer search revealed child pornography.) United States v. Thompson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25633 (11th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026).

There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest where he was seen picking up a person who walked across the border and got into his car. United States v. Quintero-Morales, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189224 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2026).*

No Rodriguez moment occurred because the length of stop was not extended and the Ranger diligently pursued the reckless driving mission. United States v. Alba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189133 (D. Utah Aug. 21, 2026).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Immigration arrests, immigration stops, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Service of SW without attachments isn’t 4A violation

KS: Running warrants on a passed out person is reasonable

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Hall

Defendant was passed out under a bridge, and the fire department and police were called. Firemen got her name and police ran a warrants check, finding one, and they arrested her. That was reasonable. State v. Willard, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 396 (Aug. 21, 2026).

The motion for reconsideration is denied. The government waited two years to get a warrant for defendant’s cell phone, and, after it was denied, it waited 67 days to reapply. The phone’s owner still had a possessory interest in the phone, and the delay was unreasonable. “The government’s motion for reconsideration does not meet this strict standard. It does not identify any controlling precedent that the Court overlooked. Daskal is neither controlling nor contrary to this Court’s analysis. The government’s alternative argument under Smith merely seeks to relitigate old issues under new theories.” In re Application for Search Warrant for Two Cellular Phones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188952 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2026).*

“Individually, these factors would likely not provide reasonable suspicion.” Collectively, they did. People v. McKimmy, 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 1610 (Aug. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on KS: Running warrants on a passed out person is reasonable

M.D.Fla.: Unidentified pills in driver’s lap may have been RS but it wasn’t PC for arrest

Posted on August 25, 2026 by Hall

Defendant was stopped for speeding, and he was arrested for drugs based on unidentified pills found in his lap when the officer looked in. That might have been reasonable suspicion, but it wasn’t probable cause. Therefore, the arrest and car search are invalid and suppressed. United States v. Vogel, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186990 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2026).

Breaking plaintiff’s car window and pulling him out here was justified by his uncooperativeness and refusing to keep his hands visible. For 14 minutes he refused to show his DL or get out when directed. “Balancing the nature of the intrusion against the severity of the suspected offense, the potential threat to officer safety, and Plaintiff’s continued resistance, the Court finds that no reasonable juror could conclude that the force used in arresting Plaintiff was objectively unreasonable.” Basargin v. City of Homer, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187097 (D. Alaska Aug. 20, 2026).*

Search warrants run to the place, not the person in alleged control. Here, there were nine cell phones found. The affidavit didn’t infer they all belonged to one defendant, but since they were found there, that was enough to search them under the warrant. United States v. Davis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187118 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Cell phones, Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Unidentified pills in driver’s lap may have been RS but it wasn’t PC for arrest

D.C.Cir.: It was reasonable for officers to conclude that evidence or instrumentalities of the crime would be found in the car used in a robbery

Posted on August 25, 2026 by Hall

It was reasonable for officers to conclude that evidence or instrumentalities of the crime would be found in the car used in a robbery. A mistaken description of the location of the car in the warrant was neither intentional nor reckless for Franks. “In sum, although we decline to opine on whether the 9-1-1 call, dialed to determine the number connected to the Samsung device, constituted an unlawful search for which the Detective should have obtained a warrant, we hold that the evidence obtained from the phone would have been inevitably discovered because the phone number itself was ultimately immaterial to whether the search warrant would have been granted.” United States v. Onyewu, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25421 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2026).*

The officer’s question about a thing in the car was not related to the traffic stop, and it extended the stop. The court finds, however, that the government showed inevitable discovery applied, and the evidence will not be suppressed. Also, the stop was valid for lack of a turn signal, and the fact the officer couldn’t see whether hand signal was used doesn’t undermine the stop. [How long has it been since any of us has seen a hand signal from a car? Bicycle, yes.] United States v. Drew, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188321 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 21, 2026).*

Defendant and his girlfriend were breaking up, and she validly consented to entry into the home, but she didn’t have apparent authority to consent to entry into his safe in the house. United States v. Ricker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188230 (D. Nev. Aug. 21, 2026).*

Posted in Apparent authority, Automobile exception, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.C.Cir.: It was reasonable for officers to conclude that evidence or instrumentalities of the crime would be found in the car used in a robbery

CA7: Officer’s warrantless view of CSAM flagged by hash value was not unreasonable

Posted on August 24, 2026 by Hall

Google and others flagged apparent CSAM by hash value alone and reported them to NCMEC which forwarded them to police where the IP address was. The officer viewed the images without a warrant and found them with names suggesting they were CSAM, and he conducted other investigation. The government could have done more, but there was probable cause by “a hair’s breadth.” United States v. Braun, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25399 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2026).

The officer’s reliance on the search warrant here was objectively reasonable, and the good faith exception applies. There also was probable cause and the information was not stale. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188317 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2026).*

The officer’s queries during the stop were all related to officer safety and didn’t unreasonably prolong the stop. United States v. Birry, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25435 (3d Cir. Aug. 21, 2026).*

Posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA7: Officer’s warrantless view of CSAM flagged by hash value was not unreasonable

D.Utah: Minor time detours to writing up a traffic ticket didn’t unreasonable extend this stop; the dog was quickly on its way

Posted on August 23, 2026 by Hall

Minor detours to the traffic stop, but all related to it, didn’t unreasonably extend the stop. The dog was quickly called for. United States v. Alba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189133 (D. Utah Aug. 21, 2026). How the court handled the detours is instructive:

Continue reading →
Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Utah: Minor time detours to writing up a traffic ticket didn’t unreasonable extend this stop; the dog was quickly on its way

KY: Despite lack of nexus, SW sustained under GFE

Posted on August 22, 2026 by Hall

A search warrant for defendant’s place was because Customs had flagged a child sex doll coming to his house. While the state supreme court held that while nexus was lacking, it remanded for determination of the good faith exception. Looking at the totality of the testimony and circumstances, the court of appeals concludes the good faith exception should apply. There was at least some evidence of nexus, and the police were not at all reckless in what they were doing. Commonwealth v. Master, 2026 Ky. App. LEXIS 83 (Aug. 21, 2026).

Defendant was stopped because he was reasonably suspected of having a murder warrant for him. The handcuffing and detention of four minutes before he was released was reasonable. McCrea v. McGill, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183665 (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2026).*

The officer here didn’t extend the stop for the dog sniff. Defendant slowed it himself a bit, and the dog was already there. And there was reasonable suspicion, too. United States v. Brown, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24779 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on KY: Despite lack of nexus, SW sustained under GFE

CO: DNA could be seized from trash

Posted on August 21, 2026 by Hall

Collecting defendant’s DNA from his trash out for collection didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment or the Colorado Constitution. People v. Anderson, 2026 COA 64 (Aug. 20, 2026) (2-1 on the state issue; a warrant should be required).

Plaintiff’s claim that his arrest lacked probable cause is viewed as an effort to undermine his conviction in violation of Heck v. Humphrey, and the claim is dismissed. Tam Ho v. Arnold, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184441 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 18, 2026).*

Defendant was stopped because he was reasonably suspected of having a murder warrant for him. The handcuffing and detention of four minutes before he was released was reasonable. McCrea v. McGill, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183665 (D.S.C. Aug. 14, 2026).*

The officer here didn’t extend the stop for the dog sniff. Defendant slowed it himself a bit, and the dog was already there. And there was reasonable suspicion, too. United States v. Brown, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24779 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026).*

Posted in Abandonment, DNA, Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CO: DNA could be seized from trash

CA8: Nebraska statute allowing SWs to cross state lines doesn’t violate 4A

Posted on August 20, 2026 by Hall

Nebraska statute authorizes search warrants to cross state lines, and this does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This was a Snapchat warrant. [The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a,d), allows state subpoenas to cross state lines.] United States v. Peterson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24711 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026).

Five phones were seized. “Human error” led to misidentifying one of them on defendant’s consent form. The consent was invalid because it was the wrong phone. United States v. Morales-Aguirre, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184752 (D.N.M. Aug. 17, 2026).*

Officers had a person warrant for defendant with a 10 pm limit. It was executed at 9:49, and defendant’s flight didn’t make it unreasonable to search the belongings he left behind when he fled. United States v. Klapman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183516 (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2026).*

License plate propped in the window was still reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop. Hudson v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 444 (Aug. 18, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA8: Nebraska statute allowing SWs to cross state lines doesn’t violate 4A

WA: Sweat patch as condition of release violated state constitution’s privacy provision

Posted on August 20, 2026 by Hall

The court imposing a sweat patch on plaintiff violated his state constitutional privacy rights. Lesser intrusive measures are required. Bailey-Cobb v. Snohomish Cty. Dist. Court, 2026 Wash. App. LEXIS 1871 (Aug. 17, 2026).

Plaintiff stated a claim for his severe injuries after being thrown to the ground for touching the reins of a police horse by police without apparent justification because he was not resisting. Flores v. Perez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24648 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026).*

By creating an X account, defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the posts. United States v. Branscum, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184993 (W.D. Mo. June 22, 2026).*

Civil Franks claim fails for lack of materiality in the false statement. Degollado v. City of Port Lavaca, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24919 (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).*

Posted in Body searches, Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, State constitution | Comments Off on WA: Sweat patch as condition of release violated state constitution’s privacy provision