Category Archives: Exclusionary rule

D.Kan.: Gun dislodged fleeing police dog wasn’t excludable, even if it was excessive force (which it wasn’t)

Siccing a police dog on a suspected armed and dangerous burglar that dislodged a Glock with a switch was not unreasonable. Even if it was excessive force, which it wasn’t, exclusion wouldn’t be the proper remedy. United States v. Wilhoite, … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Gun dislodged fleeing police dog wasn’t excludable, even if it was excessive force (which it wasn’t)

CA11: NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support PC and the GFE

NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support probable cause and the good faith exception. United States v. Gibbs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28546 (11th Cir. Sep. 17, 2026). Even if plaintiff could show that the official’s conduct was wrongful and … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support PC and the GFE

CA3: Exclusionary rule only applies to blameworthy conduct, not isolated mistakes

Exclusionary rule only applies to blameworthy conduct, not isolated mistakes. United States v. Walker, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28223 (3d Cir. Sep. 15, 2026):

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CA3: Exclusionary rule only applies to blameworthy conduct, not isolated mistakes

ID: Violation of statute in parole arrest doesn’t require suppression

While defendant’s parole arrest by a police officer violated state statute, neither the Fourth Amendment nor state constitution require suppression. State v. Satterfield, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 129 (Sep. 11, 2026):

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on ID: Violation of statute in parole arrest doesn’t require suppression

S.D.Tex.: A safe could be searched under a child porn SW

On a child pornography search warrant, search of a locked safe was reasonable. United States v. Villarreal-Resendiz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174690 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026). Stopping over the stop line was reasonable suspicion for this stop. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: A safe could be searched under a child porn SW

MD: Exclusionary rule will not be applied in judicial discipline proceedings

The exclusionary rule will not be applied in judicial discipline proceedings. In re Knapp, 2026 Md. LEXIS 330 (July 17, 2026). The affidavit for the warrant may have been weak, but more information was given to the issuing magistrate which … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MD: Exclusionary rule will not be applied in judicial discipline proceedings

CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

NM: Conflict of laws: NM exclusionary rule applies to TX search

Conflict of laws: “The New Mexico exclusionary rule is grounded in effectuating the constitutional rights of individuals and is therefore applicable where out-of-state evidence is introduced in a New Mexico court.” Here, it was a search in Texas that resulted … Continue reading →

Posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on NM: Conflict of laws: NM exclusionary rule applies to TX search

Stone v. Powell decided 50 years ago today

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), barring habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims was decided 50 years ago today.

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on Stone v. Powell decided 50 years ago today

LA4: Acting like carrying a gun and wearing a ski mask in New Orleans in June was RS

The juvenile here acted like he was carrying a weapon and he had on a ski mask in June in New Orleans. That was reasonable suspicion. State In the Int. of L.V., 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1070 (La. App. 4 … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on LA4: Acting like carrying a gun and wearing a ski mask in New Orleans in June was RS

CAAF: GFE applies to cell phone’s geolocation data because of substantial basis for the search authorization

Defendant Air Force enlisted man at a base in Italy was convicted of burglary and entering quarters with the intent to assault and photograph what was an AFOSI, where his victim beat him up in the act. Geolocation data from … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CAAF: GFE applies to cell phone’s geolocation data because of substantial basis for the search authorization

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

E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

The warrant here required “photographing his hands, fingers, and forearms.” The search warrant’s particularity wasn’t violated by manipulating his hands to allegedly mimic what was seen in child pornography photographs off his computer. Search warrants don’t have to specify how … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

E.D.N.C.: SW not required to look in def’s jail property bag and retrieve car keys

Inserting a key in a lock to see if it worked wasn’t a search. The key was in his jail property and lawfully taken from there. A warrant wasn’t required to get into his property bag. United States v. Miller, … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: SW not required to look in def’s jail property bag and retrieve car keys

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