Category Archives: Probable cause

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

Cal.: Loose MJ on a car floorboard is not a violation of the MJ “open container” provision

“Enacted as part of California’s legalization of marijuana, Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4) makes it an infraction to have an ‘open container’ of marijuana in a vehicle. The question before us is whether a small amount of … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Neutral and detached magistrate, Probable cause | Comments Off on Cal.: Loose MJ on a car floorboard is not a violation of the MJ “open container” provision

ID: Finding drugs in 43% of dog alerts doesn’t mean dog unreliable or no PC

This drug dog only found drugs in 43% of alerts. That’s still enough for probable cause. Dogs can alert where drugs have been. Lack of success doesn’t mean false hits. State v. Barritt, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 16 (Jan. 29, 2026). … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on ID: Finding drugs in 43% of dog alerts doesn’t mean dog unreliable or no PC

OH7: Male driver’s consent to search his truck included the purse of his female passenger

The driver’s consent to search his truck included the purse of his female passenger. State v. Mort, 2026-Ohio-249 (7th Dist. Jan. 28, 2026). Motion to suppress filed after sixth trial setting wasn’t timely. On the merits, the claim of lack … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on OH7: Male driver’s consent to search his truck included the purse of his female passenger

N.D.N.Y.: Being told you’d be arrested for trespassing if you didn’t leave isn’t a seizure

Being told you’d be arrested for trespassing if you didn’t leave isn’t a seizure. Keith v. Romain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13105 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2026). Police responded to a bar on a ShotSpotter report, but it was for naught. … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.N.Y.: Being told you’d be arrested for trespassing if you didn’t leave isn’t a seizure

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

S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough

Email warrant was particular enough with “practical accuracy”: “But the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is ‘on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.’ United States … Continue reading →

Posted in E-mail, Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Email SW with “practical accuracy” particular enough

N.D.Ga.: Slight delay in searching a cell phone of a person in custody who couldn’t possess it was reasonable

Because he’s in custody, defendant has a diminished expectation of getting his cell phone back. The slight delay in getting a warrant has no case law cited in support, not that it matters. United States v. Holloman, 2026 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Probable cause, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Slight delay in searching a cell phone of a person in custody who couldn’t possess it was reasonable

E.D.Okla.: Def’s high speed chase was PC

Defendant’s high speed chase was probable cause. “Defendant’s egregious eluding combined with his throwing an object from his vehicle combine to establish probable cause to search the Defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” United … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Def’s high speed chase was PC

CA6: Random and isolated interference with prisoner mail doesn’t state a claim

Random and isolated interference with prisoner mail doesn’t state a claim for relief. Malicious interference would, but that’s not alleged. Tucker v. Horn, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 531 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2026). Not search case, but defendant was suspected … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: Random and isolated interference with prisoner mail doesn’t state a claim

E.D.Ky.: DTF stop on interstate wasn’t pretextual when it was objectively reasonable for overtinting

It doesn’t matter that DTF officers were on the interstate and ordered defendant’s stop for a window tint violation because there was objective justification for it. The rest of the stop was with reasonable suspicion for the drug dog. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Pretext, Probable cause, Reasonableness, Staleness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: DTF stop on interstate wasn’t pretextual when it was objectively reasonable for overtinting

N.D.Iowa: Affidavit for SW could have been more explicit, but it still was good enough for PC

The affidavit for warrant isn’t perfect but it’s good enough for the issuing magistrate to draw inferences. “Again, the affidavit could have been improved with explicit explanations of the ‘how’ and ‘why.’ But I do not fault an experienced judge … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Affidavit for SW could have been more explicit, but it still was good enough for PC

D.D.C.: A dozen officers involved in traffic stop slow walked it for drug dog

A dozen officers purposely delayed the traffic stop for a dog sniff. “The Government has failed to show that police conducted this stop in a reasonably diligent manner. To the contrary, Officer Brennan’s decision to delegate all four warnings to … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Dog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.D.C.: A dozen officers involved in traffic stop slow walked it for drug dog

MA: Arguing a “reddish-brown substance” could be a bunch of things and not blood “amounts to the type of ‘hypercritical analysis’ that is improper when reviewing search warrant affidavits”

The search warrant for defendant’s place for evidence of a murder showed nexus and probable cause including his car (because of distance to the homicide) and laptop (communicating with the victim). It was reasonable for the magistrate to conclude that … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus, Probable cause | Comments Off on MA: Arguing a “reddish-brown substance” could be a bunch of things and not blood “amounts to the type of ‘hypercritical analysis’ that is improper when reviewing search warrant affidavits”

CA10: Protective sweep of car was valid despite presence of six officers; def would get back in car

There was reasonable suspicion enough potential for dangerousness for a protective sweep of defendant’s car. “The district court’s dangerousness analysis relied on four factors: (1) Raban’s gang affiliation, (2) the high-crime and rival-gang neighborhood, (3) Armstrong’s presence, and (4) Raban’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Cell phones, Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA10: Protective sweep of car was valid despite presence of six officers; def would get back in car

M.D.Pa.: CSAM PC allegations never go stale

Child pornography probable cause allegations, especially those on a computer have a “long shelf life” and virtually never go stale. United States v. Picca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267611 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2025). Plaintiff alleged enough to proceed past … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: CSAM PC allegations never go stale

MN: GFE does not apply to after search changes in law that were obviously coming

“The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a warrantless vehicle search based solely on the smell of marijuana that occurred before we issued our opinion in State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 2023), which held … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Nexus, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on MN: GFE does not apply to after search changes in law that were obviously coming

D.Minn.: No duty for officer to resolve traffic stop questions before safety concerns resolved

“All of these questions lasted fewer than thirty seconds–they did not ‘measurably extend’ the stop. Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333. Ali cites no law that suggests that officers must address the traffic infraction before they may ask questions related to … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Nexus, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.Minn.: No duty for officer to resolve traffic stop questions before safety concerns resolved

TN: 2009 DNA seizure that should have been purged and wasn’t could be relied on in GF and then another order issued

Defendant’s DNA was seized in 2009 and should have been purged, but it wasn’t. He’s later charged with another crime. A confirmatory test was run. The good faith exception applies to the DNA that wasn’t purged like it was supposed … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Excessive force, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on TN: 2009 DNA seizure that should have been purged and wasn’t could be relied on in GF and then another order issued

CA8: Merely handling bag on a Greyhound Bus at a stop wasn’t a search or seizure

The officer’s handling defendant’s suitcase on a Greyhound Bus for five seconds to remove it from the bus, just as the driver or baggage handlers would, before asking him for consent was not unreasonable. Defendant validly consented to its search. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Search, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA8: Merely handling bag on a Greyhound Bus at a stop wasn’t a search or seizure