Category Archives: Reasonable suspicion

FL5: Only matching description of anonymous caller’s burglary report wasn’t RS; nothing about def suggested he was a burglar

“In conclusion, the officers in this case corroborated nothing more than the innocent details of identification that matched Holliday’s appearance (other than the two snakes [wrapped around his neck], which the caller did not mention). The officers were entitled to … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on FL5: Only matching description of anonymous caller’s burglary report wasn’t RS; nothing about def suggested he was a burglar

CA2: Cell phone search reasonable at the border

At the border, defendant’s cell phone was first manually searched and then forensically searched. Neither was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Robinson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 30035 (2d Cir. Oct. 1, 2026), following United States v. Alisigwe, … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, First Amendment, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA2: Cell phone search reasonable at the border

FL3: Exclusion of evidence is a separate question from whether 4A was violated

The question of exclusion of the evidence is always separate from whether the Fourth Amendment was violated. Mercado v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 7697 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 1, 2026). Defendant’s guilty plea waived his search claim in his … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on FL3: Exclusion of evidence is a separate question from whether 4A was violated

D.N.M.: Checking VIN number during traffic stop is reasonable

During a traffic stop, asking for identification and about travel plans and checking the VIN is reasonable under N.Y. v. Class. United States v. Sanchez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223586 (D.N.M. Sep. 30, 2026). Defendant was a passenger in a … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Checking VIN number during traffic stop is reasonable

E.D.Ky.: Possession of firearms is ongoing crime so seldom stale

Possession of firearms is an ongoing crime, not an episodic one, so the warrant was not stale. United States v. Jefferson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219784 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2026). The information in the affidavit for warrant was sufficient … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Staleness | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Possession of firearms is ongoing crime so seldom stale

TX14: RS doesn’t even require an identifiable crime

Reasonable suspicion doesn’t even require that the officer has to articulate what crime is happening or about to happen. Williams v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 9076 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Sep. 29, 2026):

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TX14: RS doesn’t even require an identifiable crime

CA5: Bogus traffic stop can’t support frisk

Plaintiff plausibly alleged a bogus traffic stop and so the frisk lacked reasonable suspicion and violated the Fourth Amendment. This is clearly established law. Rosales v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29016 (5th Cir. Sep. 22, 2026). (Reason article here.) … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA5: Bogus traffic stop can’t support frisk

MN: Risk of destruction of evidence was exigency for seizure of cell phone

The exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone pending getting a warrant was risk of destruction of evidence. State v. Laflex, 2026 Minn. LEXIS 592 (Sep. 23, 2026). Furtive movements add to reasonable suspicion. Ex parte Lucio, 2026 Tex. Crim. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Emergency / exigency, Mail and packages, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MN: Risk of destruction of evidence was exigency for seizure of cell phone

GA: No case says SW required to ask for cell phone password

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that a warrant was required for a request for a cell phone password. No case anywhere says that’s required. Reynolds v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 303 (Sep. 22, 2026). The inventory search of … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Inventory, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on GA: No case says SW required to ask for cell phone password

VA: Body cam video of valid arrest would not be suppressed

Defendant doesn’t get to suppress the body cam of her detention where the officer told her to stand in one place and then she later assaulted the officer. It was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Ross v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Body cameras, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on VA: Body cam video of valid arrest would not be suppressed

S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

Officers came to defendant’s house without an arrest or search warrant to arrest him for a CSAM offense. He answered the door in his underwear. They asked about cell phone and saw it and seized it. Payton applies, and the … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Good faith exception, immigration stops, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

CA3: Ptfs pled a 4A claim for CPS workers demanding entry without sufficient exigency

Plaintiffs plausibly pled violations of the Fourth Amendment for child protective services demanding and gaining entry into the home without a sufficient showing of exigency to protect the children. Also, the special needs doctrine doesn’t apply here. O’Bryant v. N.J. … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA3: Ptfs pled a 4A claim for CPS workers demanding entry without sufficient exigency

D.N.J.: Pretrial detainee’s cell search and seizure of papers caused no prejudice nor revealed legal strategies

Defendant was in a federal detention center pending trial, and his cell was searched and legal materials for trial were seized. His Fourth Amendment claim fails on its face. His Sixth Amendment claim also fails because a BOP attorney screened … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Pretrial detainee’s cell search and seizure of papers caused no prejudice nor revealed legal strategies

OH1: RS for stop on a prostitution 911 call even though def was significantly older than the person described in the call

Officers got a 911 call about potential prostitution with a woman approaching cars at an intersection known for that. It turned out she was significantly older than the person described in the 911 call, but there still was reasonable suspicion … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH1: RS for stop on a prostitution 911 call even though def was significantly older than the person described in the call

E.D.Mich.: ER nurse’s finding shell casing in def’s pants was private search

Defendant was in the ER and the hospital had his clothes. A spent shell casing was discovered in his pants by a nurse and it was turned over to the police. That was a private search. United States v. Young, … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Private search, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: ER nurse’s finding shell casing in def’s pants was private search

Cal.4: School resource officers need RS for a weapons search in school

School resource officers also need reasonable suspicion for a weapons search in school, and here the officer had it. At a middle school no less. In re N.S., 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 548 (4th Dist. Sep. 8, 2026). As long … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, School searches | Comments Off on Cal.4: School resource officers need RS for a weapons search in school

CA8: SW affidavit can’t be supplemented, but a revised one can be filed

In the Eighth Circuit at least, the government can’t supplement a search warrant affidavit. Here, however, they submitted a revised affidavit which clarified what amounts to an immaterial fact. Affirmed. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26544 (8th … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Oath or affirmation, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA8: SW affidavit can’t be supplemented, but a revised one can be filed

IL5: Community caretaking exception doesn’t support home searches

“Given the above precedent, we disagree with the State that the community caretaking doctrine remains a viable purpose for a warrantless entry into a home. Instead, we believe that the Caniglia decision clearly rejected the community caretaking exception outside of … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on IL5: Community caretaking exception doesn’t support home searches

ID: Hospital collecting umbilical cord blood conducted a private search

A hospital collecting umbilical cord blood after a birth was not a state actor nor acting at law enforcement’s request or suggestion. This was a private search, and the blood tested positive for drugs. State v. Kawano, 2026 Ida. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Pretext, Private search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on ID: Hospital collecting umbilical cord blood conducted a private search

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