The officer was justified in a welfare check of defendant sleeping in his car, but it never developed into reasonable suspicion. The stop was unreasonably extended. State v. Zeimer, 2022 MT 96, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 479 (May 24, 2022).
A zoning inspection here to get a permit was reasonable. The homeowner couldn’t require the county to do it after the permit was granted. Schmid v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14096 (9th Cir. May 24, 2022).*
The CI was questioned under oath by the state court judge [as happens in NY], and the redacted portions of the transcript relate only to his or her identity and not the merits of the probable cause. United States v. Bailey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93149 (W.D.N.Y. May 24, 2022).*
The inventory here was proper in scope and within the NYSP policy. United States v. Morris, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93273 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for and continuing defendant’s stop. A dog sniff was permitted. The dog’s alert, however, didn’t permit a strip search of defendant. It did permit a search of the person. State v. Owensby, 2022-Ohio-1702, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 1592 (12th Dist. May 23, 2022).
Even though the officer had probable cause for a search warrant, his threat to “toss” defendant’s father’s place and unreasonably search it was coercion for defendant’s statement. United States v. Jacobs, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92701 (E.D.Ohio May 24, 2022).
The warrant affiant doesn’t have to be the one involved in the controlled buy under collective knowledge. United States v. McCallister, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13964 (4th Cir. May 23, 2022).*
“This appeal arises out of a traffic stop where a single officer, without having reasonable suspicion that a crime involving the passenger was afoot, checked the passenger for outstanding warrants. The officer used her patrol vehicle’s computer and received a ‘hit’ for a warrant and arrested the passenger. After the arrest, the officer discovered methamphetamine in the passenger’s purse, the rear of the patrol vehicle where the passenger was seated, and on the passenger’s person. The district court ordered the methamphetamine evidence suppressed after concluding the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop by checking the passenger for outstanding warrants absent reasonable suspicion or a safety justification particular to that stop. We reverse and remand as the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement to check passengers for outstanding warrants as a matter of course during traffic stops because of officer safety concerns.” State v. Wharton, 2022 Ida. LEXIS 60 (May 23, 2022).
This inventory followed policy and was otherwise reasonable, despite the investigative motive the police also probably had. State v. Johnson, 2022-Ohio-1733, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 1613 (10th Dist. May 24, 2022).
The anticipatory warrant here was lawful, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. Gober v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92964 (N.D.Ala. May 24, 2022).*
The affidavit failed to show probable cause. There was a minimal showing of nexus. That’s enough here for the good faith exception. United States v. Helton, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13943 (6th Cir. May 24, 2022):
The Michigan Supreme Court remanded Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819 (Mar. 18, 2021) (posted here) to determine below whether the exclusionary rule should apply in a zoning case. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2022 Mich. LEXIS 981 (May 20, 2022).*
Alleged violation of prison mail regulations in handling legal mail on a flash drive doesn’t make a Fourth Amendment claim. Young v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13724 (6th Cir. May 18, 2022).
Defendant’s argument reasonable suspicion dissipated during his stop is rejected based on his demeanor during the stop. United States v. Baird, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91410 (D.Utah May 20, 2022).*
The subpoena to the RNC raises complicated Fourth Amendment issues despite the Speech and Debate Clause. A stay pending appeal is granted because the case could become moot and the RNC suffer irreparable harm before the appeal is complete. Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Pelosi, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91503 (D.D.C. May 20, 2022).*
A person in prison has no standing to contest a wiretap on a contraband cell phone. United States v. Yandell, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91166 (E.D.Cal. May 20, 2022).
“The facts of this case indicate that [Officer] Leitzen, while conducting a lawful Terry frisk for weapons, determined based on his experience that the objects he felt in Hunt’s pocket were packaged drugs, specifically either powder cocaine, crack cocaine, or heroin. Unlike in Dickerson, the record in this case contains no evidence to suggest that Leitzen extended the pat-down or explored Hunt’s pocket further than permitted to discover if Hunt was armed. This determination that Hunt at that moment possessed illegal drugs, if founded, would establish probable cause for Hunt’s arrest and seizure of the drugs after a search incident to his arrest.” State v. Hunt, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 60 (May 20, 2022).*
This stop was reasonably extended because reasonable suspicion developed during it. United States v. Taylor, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91172 (E.D.Tenn. May 20, 2022).*
The government’s first justification for the stop, a traffic offense, fails. It’s “fall back argument” that there was reliable information from a CI does not. United States v. Boatright, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90944 (N.D.Tex. May 20, 2022).*
Broad conclusory motions to suppress should be summarily denied. “The Government and the Court had no warning that Munguia-Lopez was going to challenge his own stop at the hearing. This Court does not look favorably on counsel filing motions with the broadest possible conclusory language that counsel later seeks to flesh out in court. Accordingly, the Court denied Munguia-Lopez’s request to challenge his own stop during the hearing but will allow Munguia-Lopez a grace period to file a Motion to Suppress. If Munguia-Lopez desires to file his own Motion to Suppress regarding any Fourth Amendment violations regarding his own traffic stop, he must do so within fourteen days of the issuance of this order.” And that order denies the co-defendants’ motions to suppress. United States v. Munguia-Lopez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90635 (D.Idaho May 18, 2022).
A witness’s statement that a search was by consent when it wasn’t is for cross-examination at trial. “Wanless believes that the witness’s statement misled the jury about the source of the ledger and financial documents. That the witness misstated the authority for the search, however, does not amount to prosecutorial misconduct or otherwise justify a new trial. If the nature of the authority for the search was relevant to the defense, then it was a proper subject for cross-examination.” United States v. Unpradit, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13648 (8th Cir. May 20, 2022).*
Commercial fishing is a closely regulated industry. “Appellant also had a sea scallop permit, requiring the vessel to have a vessel monitoring system (VMS), which transmits global positioning system (GPS) coordinates every half hour to the National Marine Fisheries Service.” Those were subject to inspection. Benson v. State, Dept. of Environmental Mgmt., 2022 R.I. Super. LEXIS 38 (May 19, 2022).
Officers were dispatched to a “fight in progress” in a park and area known for juvenile fights.“ And from E.V.’s appearance and location — sweaty and out of breath and inside the apartment building — they reasonably suspected that he was involved in the assault.” There was thus reasonable suspicion. People v. E.V., 2022 COA 53, 2022 Colo. App. LEXIS 737 (May 19, 2022).*
The ticket writing process would take 7-8 minutes, and a second officer with a drug dog didn’t extend the stop. Defendant’s claim that the officer had a pretextual motive to search for drugs is factually evident, but barred by existing law. United States v. McMillin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89942 (D.Kan. May 18, 2022).*
Defendant was seized without reasonable suspicion, and defense counsel was ineffective for not raising it. State v. Demby, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 198 (Apr. 29, 2022).*
WaPo: Florida sheriff’s deputy uses Taser at gas station, setting man on fire by Lindsey Bever (“A Florida sheriff’s deputy is facing a criminal charge after using a Taser near gasoline, igniting a fire that severely burned a 26-year-old suspect and injured the deputy himself and two fellow officers.”). And, for excessive force purposes and municipal liability, it seems to evince a complete lack of training.
When one leaves his cell phone in a car, he or she assumes the risk that the phone will be found by the police and searched. United States v. Hagy, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89437 (S.D.W.Va. May 18, 2022).
“They also propose facts they believe the police should have added to the affidavit. … But ‘[t]he affidavit is judged on the adequacy of what it does contain, not on what it lacks, or on what a critic might say should have been added.’ United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000); …” Franks challenge denied. United States v. Goddard, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89143 (S.D.Ohio May 18, 2022).*
A parole search in Arkansas does not require reasonable suspicion. Hall v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 232, 2022 Ark. App. LEXIS 241 (May 18, 2022).*
Torrential Downpour warrant for child pornography was reasonable. United States v. Harper, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89375 (W.D.Tenn. May 18, 2022).*
There was no probable cause for the tracking warrant for defendant. But, it was not so lacking in probable cause that the good faith exception does not apply. United States v. Escudero, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89120 (D.Minn. May 18, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop when the officers abandoned the traffic stop and it became an investigation. United States v. Whitley, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13398 (6th Cir. May 18, 2022).*
“Collado-Rivera has not shown he suffered ineffective assistance of trial counsel from counsel’s failure to obtain a Franks hearing because he has not provided prima facie proof that any search warrant affidavit in this case was falsified.” United States v. Collado-Rivera, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89147 (S.D.Ohio May 17, 2022).*
The initial dog alert here did not provide probable cause for search of defendant’s vehicle. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a Fourth Amendment challenge. “In summary, based on the record before us, a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the vehicle appears meritorious—that is, it would have had a reasonable likelihood of success. The record contains no indication that the officers had probable cause at the outset or during Timber’s first entry into the car and, as a result, for the search following Timber’s re-entry to be permissible, Handler Officer must not have orchestrated it and Timber’s re-entry into the car must have been purely instinctual. In this instance, that was clearly not the case: Timber’s second entry into the vehicle was orchestrated by Handler Officer, who encouraged Timber to re-enter the car, whereupon Handler Officer shut the driver’s side door to keep Timber in the car to search for drugs.” State v. Beames, 2022 UT App 61, 2022 Utah App. LEXIS 64 (May 12, 2022).
Merely occupying a hotel room doesn’t give one standing to challenge its search. In the Second Circuit, an affidavit showing one’s reasonable expectation of privacy has to be presented with the motion to suppress. United States v. Wiley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89004 (D.Conn. May 18, 2022).*
WaPo: AI may be searching you for guns the next time you go out in public (“A Massachusetts company says it could help stop shootings like the Tops massacre in Buffalo. Its surveillance product is increasingly popular — and, critics say, problematic.”)
The officer bumped defendant on a bike. It was potentially a seizure, but “Under Hodari D. and Torres, the seizure thus ended when Daniels got up and began running down the driveway.” United States v. Daniels, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88072 (N.D.Cal. May 16, 2022).
It is harder to show staleness during an ongoing drug dealing offense. United States v. Fort, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88117 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2022).*
During a traffic stop with the occupants out of the car, officers had reasonable suspicion for a protective sweep and found a gun. The tougher question of defendant’s standing as a passenger doesn’t have to be decided. United States v. Rodriguez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13021 (5th Cir. May 13, 2022).*