Category Archives: Warrant execution

E.D.Mich.: Second SW for cell phone data retained by govt was valid

This is a second motion to suppress a cell phone search, the first having been denied. A copy of the phone remains with the government, the phone having been returned. The first warrant to review the contents was for human … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Plain view, feel, smell, Stop and frisk, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Second SW for cell phone data retained by govt was valid

S.D.W.Va.: “Shocking” nature of immigration raid on a Mexican restaurant at lunchtime didn’t warrant suppression

Defendants run a family-owned Mexican restaurant in West Virginia. HSI did a masked and armed immigration middle of day raid for employees under an inspection warrant. While the raid may have been “shocking” to everybody, it’s not enough to be … Continue reading →

Posted in immigration searches, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: “Shocking” nature of immigration raid on a Mexican restaurant at lunchtime didn’t warrant suppression

CA11: Wrong-house raid suit barred by FTCA

Supposedly relying on a personal GPS device, the FBI SWAT team raided the wrong house, three houses from the target location and on a different street. The FTCA suit is barred under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort … Continue reading →

Posted in Federal Tort Claims Act, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Wrong-house raid suit barred by FTCA

D.Me.: Yes, more investigation could have been done, but there’s still PC on what there was

“With the benefit of advocacy and adversarial briefing, it is easy to look back over Special Agent Bell’s affidavit and reflect on the facts that are missing or additional investigative steps that could have been taken but were not. But … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Waiver, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Me.: Yes, more investigation could have been done, but there’s still PC on what there was

CA11: Service of SW without attachments isn’t 4A violation

Defendant’s effort to subpoena five witnesses in support of his Franks challenge was properly denied. Their testimony would be material to the outcome, and they were also speculative. As to the execution of the warrant, the fact he got a … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Immigration arrests, immigration stops, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Service of SW without attachments isn’t 4A violation

CA8: Nebraska statute allowing SWs to cross state lines doesn’t violate 4A

Nebraska statute authorizes search warrants to cross state lines, and this does not violate the Fourth Amendment. This was a Snapchat warrant. [The Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a,d), allows state subpoenas to cross state lines.] United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA8: Nebraska statute allowing SWs to cross state lines doesn’t violate 4A

CA6: SW in drug case led to finding CSAM, SW was still particular

Defendant was a suspect in a drug investigation, and they got search warrants for his place and cell phones, not knowing even how many there were or what they looked like. The warrants were with probable cause. The search for … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA6: SW in drug case led to finding CSAM, SW was still particular

VA: SW that included “evidence of occupancy” could peruse def’s journals; that led to SW for them

In executing a search warrant in a murder case, officers looking for evidence of occupancy authorized by the warrant perused defendant’s journals. Not finding evidence of occupancy, they found other potential leads and applied for a warrant to read the … Continue reading →

Posted in Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on VA: SW that included “evidence of occupancy” could peruse def’s journals; that led to SW for them

E.D.Pa.: Voluntary statement during search that “everything is mine” was admissible

Voluntary statement from the handcuffed defendant during the search of his house when he saw his handcuffed girlfriend crying that “everything is mine” were admissible. United States v. Espinosa, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160387 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2026). Defendant’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras, Custody, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Voluntary statement during search that “everything is mine” was admissible

E.D.Ark.: Bivens not extended to knock-and-announce violation and shooting; FTCA applies instead

Bivens won’t be extended to an alleged knock-and-announce violation and a police shooting of the homeowner. SCOTUS should just go ahead and abandon Bivens. It proceeds as an FTCA case. Malinowski v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148126 (E.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Nexus, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: Bivens not extended to knock-and-announce violation and shooting; FTCA applies instead

TX3: DUI blood draw while in restraint chair not 4A unreasonable

Taking defendant’s blood for DUI at the station house by warrant when he was in a restraint chair didn’t make the search unreasonable. Hildebrandt v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 5866 (Tex. App. – Austin June 25, 2026). A Ring … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Computer and cloud searches, Warrant execution | Comments Off on TX3: DUI blood draw while in restraint chair not 4A unreasonable

Cal.1: Entry by robot, drone, tear gas, and flash bang was with PC after def refused to come out on a SW and AW

To arrest the defendant on a warrant and with a search warrant, the SWAT team surrounded his house. They used a robot, drone, tear gas, and a flash bang sent into the apartment. He finally came out and surrendered. Despite … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Seizure, Warrant execution | Comments Off on Cal.1: Entry by robot, drone, tear gas, and flash bang was with PC after def refused to come out on a SW and AW

CA2: Failure to read a SW isn’t a 4A violation without overseizure

Failure to read a warrant before execution isn’t a Fourth Amendment violation without an overseizure. The cell phone warrant here had search of the cell phone crossed out, permitting only seizure at first. The executing officers didn’t know it had … Continue reading →

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA2: Failure to read a SW isn’t a 4A violation without overseizure

N.D.Ohio: Failure to serve state SW within state mandated time not 4A violation

The state search warrant in this case was not served within three days as required by Ohio law. That did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and he shows no prejudice. United States v. Calhoun, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121202 (N.D. … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Seizure, State constitution, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Failure to serve state SW within state mandated time not 4A violation

CO: Anonymous report of student smoking pot in school justified backpack search

An anonymous report to a school official the juvenile was smoking pot in class justified a search of his backpack under T.L.O. Suppression order reversed. People in interest of T.J.W., 2026 CO 38 (June 1, 2026). Defendant’s parole search was … Continue reading →

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Probation / Parole search, School searches, Social media warrants, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CO: Anonymous report of student smoking pot in school justified backpack search

E.D.Va.: SW for WaPo’s reporter’s home and devices violated Privacy Protection Act

The search warrant for a Washington Post reporter’s computers, phone, and files violated the Privacy Protection Act because it was not evidence of a crime or contraband. It also implicates prior restraint on speech. The USMJ’s order that the court … Continue reading →

Posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SW for WaPo’s reporter’s home and devices violated Privacy Protection Act

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

N.D.Ohio: Where 1 of 10 officers in a search wore a bodycam, that doesn’t mean the others couldn’t be credible

“Harris also questions the ‘credibility’ of the officers executing the search warrant because only 1 out of 10 officers … wore a body camera at any point during the search. But other than generalized complaints about the lack of body … Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras, Ineffective assistance, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Where 1 of 10 officers in a search wore a bodycam, that doesn’t mean the others couldn’t be credible

VA: Statutory requirement to provide SW papers only applies to “places of abode”

Defendant sold drugs in a store in a controlled buy. The statute on providing a warrant and affidavit to the occupant only applies to places of abode. Blow v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. LEXIS 29 (Apr. 16, 2026). A narcotics officer … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on VA: Statutory requirement to provide SW papers only applies to “places of abode”

W.D.N.Y.: No IAC for not challenging search without standing

“In view of Dunnigan’s self-professed lack of any interest in or connection to the premises searched, Dunnigan’s attorney cannot be faulted for failing to challenge a search for which his client lacked standing to challenge.” United States v. Dunnigan, 2026 … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Plain view, feel, smell, Seizure, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: No IAC for not challenging search without standing