Category Archives: Issue preclusion

DE: Second warrant after first general warrant was independent source for search

The trial court held the warrant for defendant’s cell phone was a general warrant for overbreadth but the independent source doctrine saved the second search warrant after the first search. “All Delaware Superior Court cases addressing the instant issue support … Continue reading

Posted in General warrant, Independent source, Issue preclusion, Nexus | Comments Off on DE: Second warrant after first general warrant was independent source for search

CA8: Police with arrest warrant could enter third-party premises to arrest defendant

Police with a warrant for defendant could enter a third party’s premises to arrest him on probable cause that he was present. Under Steagald, defendant had no more reasonable expectation of privacy in the third party’s premises than the owner … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA8: Police with arrest warrant could enter third-party premises to arrest defendant

D.Ariz.: Alleged perjury at state suppression hearing doesn’t overcome Stone bar

2254 petitioner’s claim the officer perjured himself during his suppression hearing doesn’t overcome the Stone bar. Soliven v. Thornell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45209 (D. Ariz. Mar. 5, 2026). 2254 petitioner’s effort to include an “inadvertently omitted” Fourth Amendment claim … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Alleged perjury at state suppression hearing doesn’t overcome Stone bar

S.D.Ohio: Two on Stone

“Because Stone v. Powell prohibits this Court’s consideration of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge’s denial of expansion of the record to include the dash cam footage is affirmed because consideration of that footage is prohibited by Stone. The … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Two on Stone

CA4: Error to deny suppression motion without hearing where there’s disputed facts

The district court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress without a hearing when there were disputed facts. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6196 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2026). Defendant consented orally and in writing to search … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Issue preclusion, Nexus, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: Error to deny suppression motion without hearing where there’s disputed facts

W.D.Pa.: Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over

Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over. Harris v. Trent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42416 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2026). “Here, assuming the factual disputes in Franke’s favor, the relevant question is whether it was clearly established … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over

D.N.M.: Suit over search in pending criminal case barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s first Fourth Amendment claim failed under Heck. He amended the complaint and still doesn’t overcome it. His claim of failure to train in serving search warrants is conclusory and doesn’t state a claim either. Flores v. Wood, 2026 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Suit over search in pending criminal case barred by Heck

D.S.D.: Volatile home situation justified sweep for gun

A volatile situation in the house justified an exigency search (or sweep) of other rooms for a weapon. United States v. Boyd, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38079 (D.S.D. Feb. 23, 2026).* 2254 petitioner’s CSLI claim and trial were all before … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion, Neutral and detached magistrate, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Volatile home situation justified sweep for gun

IL: Probationer’s ankle monitor search put him at scene of murder

A codefendant was on probation, and a search warrant was used to get information from his ankle monitor. That put him at the scene of a murder. People v. Irby, 2026 IL App (4th) 241389 (Feb. 23, 2026).* Separate exigency … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Probationer’s ankle monitor search put him at scene of murder

D.Utah: Asking about drug history during traffic stop lacked RS and unreasonably extended stop

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, there are insufficient facts before the court to establish reasonable suspicion that would allow Officer Embley to prolong the stop and inquire about Kummer’s drug history. Reasonable suspicion is a low standard, but it … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Utah: Asking about drug history during traffic stop lacked RS and unreasonably extended stop

D.Kan.: Ptf’s § 1983 case stayed where filed while underlying criminal case was ongoing

Plaintiff sued while his criminal trespass case was pending in state municipal court. The action is stayed because plaintiff can raise his constitutional claims there. Younger also counsels that. Spiehs v. Allen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35038 (D. Kan. Feb. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Seizure | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Ptf’s § 1983 case stayed where filed while underlying criminal case was ongoing

E.D.Pa.: Warrant not required to be shown at time of arrest

The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant be provided at the time of arrest, and an arrest can occur with probable cause and without a warrant in felony cases. Mister v. Marino, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33508 (E.D. Pa. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Warrant not required to be shown at time of arrest

AR: Trial counsel’s comment motion to suppress ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel

A motion to suppress once made and denied doesn’t have to be renewed during the proof. Trial counsel’s statement that the ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel to raise it, but it loses on the merits anyway. Cobb v. … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on AR: Trial counsel’s comment motion to suppress ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel

M.D.Fla.: In a 2254, court can decide petitioner loses on merits or deny relief on Stone, as it chooses

2254 petitioner loses on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim, and the court can opt to do that or apply Stone and not decide it. Evans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29920 n.2 (M.D. Fla. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: In a 2254, court can decide petitioner loses on merits or deny relief on Stone, as it chooses

OR: Accidentally omitted warrant from email results in suppressing search despite finding of PC and particularity

The officer emailed to the magistrate the affidavit for warrant and he thought the warrant, too. The magistrate emailed back saying she found probable cause and authorized the search. A day or two later, the officer realized the warrant was … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on OR: Accidentally omitted warrant from email results in suppressing search despite finding of PC and particularity

D.Colo.: Prospective relief against judge-authorized administrative warrants denied

Plaintiff was the subject of an administrative warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. The request for prospective relief is denied, and the complaint is dismissed. Waldrop v. Colo. Dep’t of Agric., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27532 (D. Colo. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Administrative search, Issue preclusion, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Prospective relief against judge-authorized administrative warrants denied

CA6: Stone requires that a habeas petitioner had a method to make 4A claims, not that they would succeed

Petitioner had his opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and did, and the outcome doesn’t matter. The fact that he could do so does. CoA denied. Bugno v. Walters, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3780 (6th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA6: Stone requires that a habeas petitioner had a method to make 4A claims, not that they would succeed

OH6: Search claim resolved in criminal case is collateral estoppel in forfeiture

This is a forfeiture after defendant lost his search claim in his criminal case. The search issue is res judicata or collateral estoppel in the forfeiture. State v. Pitts, 2026-Ohio-292 (6th Dist. Jan. 30, 2026). Defendant’s superseding indictment raising the … Continue reading

Posted in Forfeiture, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on OH6: Search claim resolved in criminal case is collateral estoppel in forfeiture

AR: Asking for SW before opening the door is not obstructing governmental operations

Asking for a search warrant before opening the door is not obstructing governmental operations. The motion for directed verdict should have been granted. This is not active resistance. Keeton v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 53 (Jan. 28, 2026). The Heck … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonableness, Waiver, Warrant execution | Comments Off on AR: Asking for SW before opening the door is not obstructing governmental operations

E.D.Pa.: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to grand jury evidence

Under Calandra (1974), there’s no basis for dismissing an indictment because it might be based on an illegal search. The search was valid anyway because it was based on the consenter’s apparent authority. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Immigration arrests, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to grand jury evidence