Category Archives: Standing

N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

“That said, specificity is ‘relative,’ and a warrant ‘need not be more specific than knowledge allows.’ United States v. Bishop, 910 F.3d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 2018). In other words, law enforcement is required to particularize a warrant only to … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Particularity is a function of what’s known

S.D.W.Va.: Paying “rent” in drugs is a business transaction didn’t give a REP here

Paying daily “rent” in drugs is a business transaction without standing. “Although Jackson was an overnight guest insofar as he slept on the couch in the living room, he told law enforcement officers in his interview that he paid McCallister … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonableness, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Paying “rent” in drugs is a business transaction didn’t give a REP here

LA5: Off-duty officer feeling a bag was a search, but bag was abandoned

Defendant left a bag on the counter of a gym and went outside and acted suspicious. An off-duty officer was a customer. He felt the bag, feeling a gun. Then police were called. This qualified as a government search, but … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity, Search, Standing | Comments Off on LA5: Off-duty officer feeling a bag was a search, but bag was abandoned

N.D.Ohio: Visitor getting high and passing out on couch doesn’t give standing to challenge search of premises

Defendant got high and fell asleep on the couch, and he was there when the raid occurred. He didn’t have standing. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103820 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2025). The government’s motion to reconsider … Continue reading

Posted in Inventory, Private search, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Visitor getting high and passing out on couch doesn’t give standing to challenge search of premises

TX5: Def driving his boss’s truck by permission had standing

Defendant driving his boss’s truck by permission had standing. Here, the issue was the scope of his consent to search it. The trial court’s conclusion he only was agreeing that he wasn’t the owner of the truck was sustained on … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Burden of pleading, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on TX5: Def driving his boss’s truck by permission had standing

OH1: “reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.”

“But reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.” State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 1640 (1st Dist. May 8, 2025). The home owner consented to a complete search, and the defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on OH1: “reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect is not necessarily reasonable suspicion to search them.”

N.D.Ala.: Lack of a SW signature cured by GFE

“Defendant argues that the warrant is facially deficient because the affidavit lacked a signature, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Gordon, 686 F. App’x 702, 704 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Forfeiture, Good faith exception, Neutral and detached magistrate, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Lack of a SW signature cured by GFE

S.D.N.Y.: SW affidavit differs from crime in indictment such that court grants Franks hearing

Because the affidavit for search warrant differs so much from the ultimate crime defendants were charged with, defendant at least gets a Franks hearing. There’s some suggestion of materiality, but that’s not decided yet. United States v. Peraire-Bueno, 2025 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: SW affidavit differs from crime in indictment such that court grants Franks hearing

CA6: Ptf’s § 1983 case over his traffic stop and tickets barred by Younger

Plaintiff was ticketed by officers of the Kirkland PD, one for having a fictitious license plate, and he sued in federal court claiming Fourth Amendment and right to travel violations and the city had no jurisdiction over him. Younger bars … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on CA6: Ptf’s § 1983 case over his traffic stop and tickets barred by Younger

E.D.Pa.: A prison inmate has no standing in his cell

Correctional officers found 20 cell phones in defendant’s cell. He has no standing in his cell. As to the cell phone searches, even if he had standing, the warrants were not overbroad. United States v. Nasir, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Probable cause, Protective sweep, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: A prison inmate has no standing in his cell

TX3: It was a fair inference for PC that evidence of def’s social media posts were on his phone

Defendant was a suspect in a driveby shooting. Because defendant’s social media showed firearms, it was a fair inference that evidence of the offense or the social media posts would be on his phone. Therefore, there was probable cause for … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Standing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on TX3: It was a fair inference for PC that evidence of def’s social media posts were on his phone

CA9: Motel owner can’t assert guests’ rights

“Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim fails because Plaintiffs cannot assert the rights of the Motel’s guests, Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014), and police entry into the Motel’s public areas does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, … Continue reading

Posted in Seizure, Standing | Comments Off on CA9: Motel owner can’t assert guests’ rights

S.D.N.Y.: Just because a cell phone was found in def’s car doesn’t mean he has standing to challenge its search

Defendant didn’t show standing to challenge the search of a cell phone found in his car that wasn’t his. United States v. Pulliam, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64356 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025). A search warrant for a Jan. 6th defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Just because a cell phone was found in def’s car doesn’t mean he has standing to challenge its search

D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

Defendant filed a motion in limine in lieu of a motion to suppress which was otherwise out of time. A motion in limine isn’t a substitute for a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court goes to the merits of the … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Motions in limine aren’t motions to suppress

S.D.N.Y.:The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing

“The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing. See, United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (‘[D]efendant could not challenge the search of a residence merely … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Custody, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.:The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing

E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

An overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard. United States v. Halley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53342 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025). Even if there was a false statement in the affidavit for search warrant, it … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

S.D.W.Va.: Def’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house

Defendant’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house. United States v. Arthur, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51621 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 20, 2025). Defendant failed to plead standing in his motion to suppress … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Def’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house

CA3: Apartment visitor to conduct drug deal has no standing

An apartment visitor to conduct a drug deal has no standing to contest a search that happened while he was there. United States v. Loyal, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5853 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2025). By collective knowledge, there was … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Pretext, Standards of review, Standing | Comments Off on CA3: Apartment visitor to conduct drug deal has no standing

WA: There was an objective basis for this stop even if with pretext

There was an objective basis for defendant’s stop, even if the officer had subjective motives. State v. Olson, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 423 (Mar. 11, 2025).* Defendant was in prison for about 20 years and there were phone calls between … Continue reading

Posted in Pretext, Reasonableness, Standing | Comments Off on WA: There was an objective basis for this stop even if with pretext

CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC

The district court erred three ways in this case: The potential of a federal crime could be considered by the officer in determining probable cause. There was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The automobile exception applied. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC