Category Archives: Collective knowledge

S.D.N.Y.: Stop on an NYPD I-card showing PC was reasonable

NYPD uses “I-cards” (investigation cards) which can show facts supporting probable cause. This investigation was “closed,” but the I-card still was around, and officers used it to stop and question defendant. He refused to identify himself and he ended up … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Consent, Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Probable cause, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Stop on an NYPD I-card showing PC was reasonable

N.D.Tex.: Drone flyover approved by SW led to SW for residence

In a dog fighting investigation, Dallas PD [showing great respect for the rights of a homeowner] got a drone fly over warrant for residential property. Seeing dogs chained up in a dog fighting training configuration, officers obtained a search warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Drones, Good faith exception, Private search | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Drone flyover approved by SW led to SW for residence

CA3: Coast-to-coast collective knowledge

Investigators in Pennsylvania could rely on another investigator at UCLA and combine their information for probable cause. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29575 (3d Cir. Sep. 25, 2026). Petitioner’s 2255 Franks challenge fails to “plausibly allege” falsity. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Collective knowledge, Excessive force, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA3: Coast-to-coast collective knowledge

N.D.Cal.: Typo in list of crimes being investigated in affidavit for SW could be overlooked

A typo in the affidavit for warrant including murder as one of the crimes under investigation could be overlooked. United States v. Pokorny, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217899 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2026). Patdown searches are a part of institutional … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Typo in list of crimes being investigated in affidavit for SW could be overlooked

KS: Petr’s disclaimer of seized cash was a lack of standing in a forfeiture

Claimant’s disclaimer in the money should have been decided first, not the merits of the search. It’s essentially a lack of standing. State ex rel. Kansas Highway Patrol v. $381,620 in U.S. Currency, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 125 (May 15, 2026). … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Forfeiture, Standing | Comments Off on KS: Petr’s disclaimer of seized cash was a lack of standing in a forfeiture

OH5: DTF officer can ask marked car to make stop

A DTF officer surveilling defendant who saw a traffic offense could ask a marked car to make a traffic stop. State v. Streeter, 2026-Ohio-1668 (5th Dist. May 5, 2026).* In the Fulton County 2020 ballot seizure and return case, the … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Good faith exception, Independent source, Privileges | Comments Off on OH5: DTF officer can ask marked car to make stop

S.D.Ohio: DEA agents tailing a car can request marked unit to make a traffic stop for violations they saw

DEA agents following defendant in an unmarked car observed traffic violations, and they requested a marked unit to make a stop, which was valid. United States v. Peterson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90905 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2026).* A state … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: DEA agents tailing a car can request marked unit to make a traffic stop for violations they saw

Army: PC shown for picture files in other apps on cell phone

There was probable cause to search the picture files in defendant’s cell phone beyond the app defendant used. It was reasonable to conclude pictures could be moved between places on the phone. United States v. Ingram, 2026 CCA LEXIS 119 … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Collective knowledge, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Army: PC shown for picture files in other apps on cell phone

N.D.Iowa: RS and PC for stop and then search, so justification for drug dog is irrelevant

Based on two bases of collective knowledge, the officer had justification for a stop and a search, so the justification for the drug dog isn’t even relevant. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45275 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 5, … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: RS and PC for stop and then search, so justification for drug dog is irrelevant

AR: Trial counsel’s comment motion to suppress ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel

A motion to suppress once made and denied doesn’t have to be renewed during the proof. Trial counsel’s statement that the ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel to raise it, but it loses on the merits anyway. Cobb v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on AR: Trial counsel’s comment motion to suppress ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel

OH2: Failure to call first officer in collective knowledge not error where second officer’s own observations sufficient

The state failed to call the first officer reporting defendant to the second under the collective knowledge doctrine, but that didn’t result in a reversible denial of confrontation. The second officer’s own observations supported it. State v. Simon, 2025-Ohio-5660 (2d … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Collective knowledge, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on OH2: Failure to call first officer in collective knowledge not error where second officer’s own observations sufficient

VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

The exclusionary rule, along with a host of other things, doesn’t apply in revocation proceedings. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2025 Va. LEXIS 57 (Nov. 20, 2025) (citing treatise § 9.16). The collective knowledge doctrine applies to traffic stops. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Exclusionary rule, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on VA: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in revos

S.D.Ga.: Just being naked in bed in a hotel room doesn’t give standing

Just being naked in bed in a hotel room doesn’t give standing. Defendant had to show he either was the renter or there by permission of the renter. Here, nothing was offered on standing other than being there. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Good faith exception, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Just being naked in bed in a hotel room doesn’t give standing

CA5: Officer’s resting hand on truck while talking to def wasn’t a seizure

The officer resting his hand on defendant’s truck while talking to him during a stop was not a separate seizure of him. United States v. Larremore, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20757 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025). The closest case plaintiff … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Qualified immunity, Seizure, Standards of review, Trespass | Comments Off on CA5: Officer’s resting hand on truck while talking to def wasn’t a seizure

VA: Collective knowledge between state and federal officers for arrest

There was probable cause by collective knowledge for defendant’s arrest at Dulles airport where Virginia police asked Homeland Security to make the arrest. Lewis v. Commonwealth, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 412 (July 22, 2025) (unpublished).* Appellant’s Fourth Amendment claim was … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Arrest or entry on arrest, Collective knowledge, Waiver | Comments Off on VA: Collective knowledge between state and federal officers for arrest

D.Wyo.: SW’s catch-all phrase was still limited to drugs

“The warrant in this case has a catch-all phrase as to the types of evidence to be searched but is affirmatively limited to evidence of drug trafficking, manufacture, delivery, and possession. The warrant therefore satisfies the requirement described in cases … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Collective knowledge, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Wyo.: SW’s catch-all phrase was still limited to drugs

S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge

Defendant’s Franks claim fails. The omitted allegedly exculpatory evidence either wasn’t material to the probable cause finding or wasn’t known by law enforcement at the time the warrant issued. In this circuit, the collective knowledge doctrine applies to warrantless searches, … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge

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

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

N.D.Ga.: USMJ’s credibility determinations on search issue aren’t subject to de novo review

The USMJ’s credibility determinations on a search issue aren’t subject to de novo review before the USDJ. United States v. Messer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11783 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2025).* Collective knowledge supported reasonable suspicion here to extend the … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Excessive force, Immigration arrests, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: USMJ’s credibility determinations on search issue aren’t subject to de novo review