Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

CT: Exclusionary rule does not apply in animal welfare cases which are civil

The animal control officer did a welfare check on animals at a house and entered the curtilage to look in a window. The exclusionary rule does not apply in animal welfare cases. NE Conn. Council of Gov’ts Animal Servs. ex … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Staleness | Comments Off on CT: Exclusionary rule does not apply in animal welfare cases which are civil

W.D.Ark.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing. Owen v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42184 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 20, 2026) (recognizing rule). The officer here blocked defendant’s parked car while he was in it, so that was a stop. … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing

E.D.N.Y.: It’s not actually required a cell phone be involved in a crime; it’s whether it is likely it was

It’s not constitutionally required to show that a cell phone was actually used in a crime for probable cause to search it. It’s enough that it likely could have. “A law enforcement-affiant’s personal expertise combined with attestation to a defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Nexus, Probable cause, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: It’s not actually required a cell phone be involved in a crime; it’s whether it is likely it was

M.D.Fla.: Postal workers have no REP in their work trucks

Postal workers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their work trucks. It’s owned by the USPS and others always have access and they well know they are subject to surveillance on the job. United States v. Ayala, 2026 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Pole cameras, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Postal workers have no REP in their work trucks

GA: Visitor has no REP in common areas of host’s home

The MV’s grandmother suspected defendant was molesting her granddaughter. She placed a video camera in the living room. It was obvious with a red light on it, and there was a sign that a camera was in use. He moved … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing | Comments Off on GA: Visitor has no REP in common areas of host’s home

CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant

No qualified immunity for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant. Gibson v. City of Portland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026). As to Franks: “Even if there were a material omission, inclusion … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant

OR: Being ordered to walk backwards toward officer with hands up is a seizure

The juvenile being ordered to walk backwards to the officer with hands up is a seizure, and here it was with reasonable suspicion. P.L. v. C.P.L. (In re C.), 346 Or. App. 499 (Jan. 22, 2026) (argued 18 months ago). … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on OR: Being ordered to walk backwards toward officer with hands up is a seizure

VA: Exclusionary rule does not apply in animal cruelty forfeitures

The exclusionary rule does not apply in animal cruelty forfeitures, distinguishing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania. Mogensen v. Cty. of Rockbridge, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 46 (Jan. 27, 2026). Defendant’s stop for a broken taillight lacked reasonable suspicion because … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on VA: Exclusionary rule does not apply in animal cruelty forfeitures

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

N.D.N.Y.: Def’s immigration arrest was unreasonable and the product is suppressed

Defendant’s immigration arrest was unreasonable and the product is suppressed. United States v. Juarez-Lopez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 269401 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2025)*:

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Immigration arrests | Comments Off on N.D.N.Y.: Def’s immigration arrest was unreasonable and the product is suppressed

MA: Overly long GPS monitoring as a condition of probation can be 4A unreasonable

“Whether GPS monitoring as a condition of probation is a reasonable search turns in part on its duration, and the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating that GPS monitoring is reasonable for the entire ordered duration. Notwithstanding the requirement in … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Particularity, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MA: Overly long GPS monitoring as a condition of probation can be 4A unreasonable

VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

The exclusionary rule, along with a host of other things, doesn’t apply in revocation proceedings. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2025 Va. LEXIS 57 (Nov. 20, 2025) (citing treatise § 9.16). The collective knowledge doctrine applies to traffic stops. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

CA6: Business’s sole other employee had apparent authority to consent

Plaintiff’s adult child was the sole other employee of the business, and he had apparent authority to consent to a search. For all practical purpose, he’s in charge, too. Rockwood Auto Parts, Inc. v. Monroe Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: Business’s sole other employee had apparent authority to consent

TX13: Even if hemp and MJ smell similar, smell is still PC

The Dallas Court of Appeals “concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle gave an officer probable cause to search the vehicle and its occupants, even though the odor of marijuana is indistinguishable from the odor of hemp.” … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause | Comments Off on TX13: Even if hemp and MJ smell similar, smell is still PC

UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

Getting the feds to administratively subpoena records for a sex offense involving a minor allegedly in violation of the Utah Electronic or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) didn’t require suppression. State v. Andrus, 2025 UT 32 (Aug. 7, 2025):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, State constitution | Comments Off on UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified, and SW based on what seen was suppressed

Defendant had managerial control over the business property searched enough that he had standing to challenge its search. The security sweep of the second floor was not reasonable and, to the USMJ, “ma[de] no sense”; there was no articulable reason … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Independent source, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified, and SW based on what seen was suppressed

MO: Uncorroborated anonymous tip wasn’t PC and GFE doesn’t apply

Uncorroborated anonymous tip: “Because the affidavit relies almost entirely on an uncorroborated anonymous tip and includes no information regarding the tipster’s reliability or the specific details of the anonymous tip, it failed to supply the warrant-issuing judge with a reasonable … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on MO: Uncorroborated anonymous tip wasn’t PC and GFE doesn’t apply

CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

Downloading data from a planted GPS device violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. McNeely v. Loeschner, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9537 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). The facts of the planted device are below: McNeely v. City of Sparks, 2024 … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

CA4: No downward variance for 4A violation in revocation of supervised release

Defendant was on supervised release and revoked. No downward variance because the search violated the Fourth Amendment and led to dismissal of that separate case. United States v. Corbett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8758 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). “In … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: No downward variance for 4A violation in revocation of supervised release

Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspension proceedings. Kazelka v. Cal. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 196 (1st Dist. Mar. 27, 2025). Officers responded to a shots fired call in a Bronx apartment and entered and … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.1st: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to DL suspensions