Category Archives: Issue preclusion

S.D.N.Y.: Rule 41(g) petition for return of property granted; original seizure in NYC and Louisiana investigation hasn’t concluded

This is a Rule 41(g) petition for return of electronics seized by HSI in NYC on a Louisiana warrant for a Louisiana investigation, but no charges yet. HSI doesn’t support the basis for the seizure and hasn’t produced the warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant papers | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Rule 41(g) petition for return of property granted; original seizure in NYC and Louisiana investigation hasn’t concluded

N.D.Ohio: Car in driveway was on curtilage and plain view prohibited

Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Car in driveway was on curtilage and plain view prohibited

OH1: Statute says ID can’t be sought when def in back of police car because it’s not a “public place”

While identification can be sought during a stop on reasonable suspicion under Hiibel under the Fourth Amendment, state statute says “public place,” and the back of a police car isn’t. State v. Bell, 2026-Ohio-3614 (1st Dist. Sep. 16, 2026). 2254 … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on OH1: Statute says ID can’t be sought when def in back of police car because it’s not a “public place”

D.Utah: Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest

Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest with a person who had their case adjudicated adversely in state court. Valdez v. City of Provo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204752 (D. Utah Sep. 9, 2026). Information that defendant has … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, GPS / Tracking Data, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Staleness | Comments Off on D.Utah: Younger abstention applies to a person with common interest

KY: Consent to blood draw was not voluntary under totality

Defendant’s consent to a blood draw was not voluntary under the totality of circumstances. “The facts at hand demonstrate why a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis is crucial. McCarthy and Haney provide that being read a coercive implied consent warning is but one … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on KY: Consent to blood draw was not voluntary under totality

CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

The controlled buy off defendant gave probable cause to search his car after he left it, irrespective of an alleged pretextual traffic stop and use of a drug dog. United States v. Randle, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22657 (7th Cir. … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Privileges, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

OH1: SW for residence justified seizure of text messages about drug transactions received during execution of warrant

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 … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on OH1: SW for residence justified seizure of text messages about drug transactions received during execution of warrant

CA6: ChatGPT’s opinion that evidence was “newly discovered” for a successor habeas is wrong

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 … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Social media warrants | Comments Off on CA6: ChatGPT’s opinion that evidence was “newly discovered” for a successor habeas is wrong

MI: Lifetime SO registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable

Lifetime SORNA registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable here because defendant’s victim was under 13. People v. Vandermel, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4464 (May 28, 2026).* On a successor habeas: “Here, the ground Mack raises in his instant application was … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, GPS / Tracking Data, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on MI: Lifetime SO registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable

CA9: When a digital computer search reveals a CP hash value, officer doesn’t have to see image to have PC

A digital computer search that produces an image with a hash value that matches known child pornography is probable cause without the officer even seeing the image. United States v. Johnsen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14893 (9th Cir. May 26, … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: When a digital computer search reveals a CP hash value, officer doesn’t have to see image to have PC

NY1: A mental health defense waives REP in the medical records about it

When the accused raises a mental health defense, he waives any reasonable expectation of privacy in the records. S.M. v. City of N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3413 (1st Dept. May 21, 2026).* “[T]he … Continue reading →

Posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY1: A mental health defense waives REP in the medical records about it

OH6: Exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones

The exclusionary rule only applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones.State of Ohio/City of Or. v. Hendricks, 2026-Ohio-1796 (6th Dist. May 15, 2026).* Under Stone, “The only relevant question for this federal habeas Court is whether Butler was given a … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on OH6: Exclusionary rule applies to constitutional violations, not statutory ones

N.D.Cal.: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation in federal court of 4A claim lost in state court

Plaintiff fully litigated his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and lost. Collateral estoppel bars him from pursuing a federal claim for the same thing. Pelton v. Amador, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98995 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026). Defendant faults … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation in federal court of 4A claim lost in state court

CO: Not 4A or state constitutional violation for govt to access def’s computer via peer-to-peer sharing with BitTorrent software

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files on his computer that were open for peer-to-peer sharing. Therefore, when the government used BitTorrent to access his computer, it did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the state constitution. People … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Excessive force, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CO: Not 4A or state constitutional violation for govt to access def’s computer via peer-to-peer sharing with BitTorrent software

MA: Two isolated controlled buys 20 days before SW issued were stale

The officer’s false statement he was present for a third controlled buy satisfied Franks and was excised. Defense counsel showed that it couldn’t have happened. The remainder says two controlled buys, and these were found to be isolated transactions, the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Nexus, Search incident, Staleness | Comments Off on MA: Two isolated controlled buys 20 days before SW issued were stale

E.D.Tenn.: Application for SW was considered in detention ruling

Here, the application for the search warrant was considered on the detention question. No motion to suppress yet filed (or would one be?). United States v. Evans, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31755 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2026). Defendant’s valid stop … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Consent, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Application for SW was considered in detention ruling

MS: Failure to include SW materials anywhere in record was waiver of issues about it

Failure to include the search warrant materials anywhere in the record, either as an attachment to the motion or an exhibit at a hearing, is waiver for appeal on whether the warrant was properly issued. Burdine v. State, 2026 Miss. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Computer and cloud searches, Issue preclusion, Protective sweep, Warrant papers | Comments Off on MS: Failure to include SW materials anywhere in record was waiver of issues about it

CA6: 3 days between controlled buy and SW execution not stale

This search warrant didn’t go stale in the three days between the controlled buy and its execution. United States v. Lawrence, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9780 (6th Cir. Apr. 3, 2026).* The BAC blood draw statute includes drawing and testing, … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Issue preclusion, Staleness | Comments Off on CA6: 3 days between controlled buy and SW execution not stale

CA8: Password note near domestic partner’s computer was RS def on probation used that computer, too

Passwords near a computer seen in a probation search around defendant’s domestic partner’s computer was reasonable suspicion defendant could have too. United States v. Berry, 24-2337 (8th Cir. April 3, 2026).* Mandamus doesn’t lie to remedy petitioner’s constitutional claims. He … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA8: Password note near domestic partner’s computer was RS def on probation used that computer, too

OH9: Arrest warrant for a co-occupant of the house permitted entry under Payton

Officers had an arrest warrant for a co-occupant of the house, and that permitted their entry under Payton. State v. Cecil, 2026-Ohio-1100 (9th Dist. Mar. 30, 2026). The record on who actually consented or had apparent authority is incomplete, and … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on OH9: Arrest warrant for a co-occupant of the house permitted entry under Payton