- MI: Automobile repair business is pervasively regulated
- CA8: No standing to challenge GPS already installed in CS’s car he borrowed
- E.D.Mich.: Parole search can occur when parolee not home
- IN: dog sniff outside a hotel room door was reasonable under the state constitution
- MD: Consent to search computer was withdrawn before search
online since Feb. 24, 2003 Approx. 350,000 visits (non-robot) since 2012 Approx. 40,000 posts since 2003
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF
State courts (and some USDC opinions)
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
--Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Frontier Foundation
NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
—Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today."
— Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property."
—Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."
—United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
---Pepé Le Pew
—Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock
Category Archives: Mail and packages
A dog sniff of a package in the mail stream is reasonable. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy from a dog sniff there. State v. Teague, 2022-NCCOA-600, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 748 (Nov. 1, 2022). Defendants’ motion in limine … Continue reading
A regular USPS letter carrier is not a governmental actor the Fourth Amendment governs. Here, her thumb slipped through a preexisting hole in a package she was delivering, and she became suspicious it contained drugs and wouldn’t leave it at … Continue reading
Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his mailbox in an apartment building from unreasonable searches. A search warrant was sought through the Bronx DA, but they were short staffed and recommended the officers get landlord consent. That was … Continue reading
The Michigan Supreme Court remanded Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819 (Mar. 18, 2021) (posted here) to determine below whether the exclusionary rule should apply in a zoning case. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2022 Mich. … Continue reading
On the whole, there wasn’t reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff of the luggage they were carrying. Moreover, the court does not find they consented to it. The court declines to credit the testimony of the officer about nervousness and … Continue reading
While the pretrial inmate handbook didn’t say that outgoing mail was subject to inspection, the Supreme Court held in Stroud in 1919 that such searches were reasonable. And this one was too. United States v. Polanco, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading
This 17-day delay in holding a package for investigation and developing probable cause for a search warrant was not unreasonable. There was reasonable suspicion for the initial detention, and, despite the delay, it was still reasonable. United States v. Martinez, … Continue reading
“Because it is the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and not the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure that protects against the reading and confiscation of legal mail by prison officials, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim … Continue reading
Of two coconspirators in a package containing drugs, the named sender has standing but the coconspirator does not. Stopping the UPS truck for a dog sniff of the packages did not interfere with any reasonable expectation of privacy. Besides, there … Continue reading
Defendant lacked standing to contest the detention of a package in transit in the Post Office because he was neither shown as the addressee nor the recipient. Even so, there was reasonable suspicion to detain the package. The dog sniff … Continue reading
The fact expert Fourth Amendment counsel would have charged the client $1,000-1,800 before SCOTUS isn’t binding on the district court for fee shifting. The local rate is what’s reasonable. Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233088 … Continue reading
Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a parcel of drugs. “Even if Defendant could challenge the delay of delivering the Target Parcel, his argument fails. While ‘theoretically’ the ‘detention of mail could at some point become an unreasonable … Continue reading
United States Postal Inspection Service and Department of Homeland Security officers reasonably suspected the package coming to defendant contained contraband. There was difficulty locating the package in the “mail stream.” They finally got to it before delivery and had it … Continue reading
The traffic stop here was reasonable even if pretextual. United States v. Brown, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155885 (W.D.Mo. July 30, 2021).* There was justification for defendant’s stop: driving 100 mph and other traffic violations. United States v. Young, 2021 … Continue reading
Moving a suspicious looking box from the FedEx conveyor belt to a back room for a dog sniff did not require reasonable suspicion nor did it deprive FedEx of custody of the box. The dog alert provided justification for a … Continue reading
E.D.N.C.: The fact the search violated the state constitution isn’t a factor on legality of the search in federal case
In a federal criminal case, the fact the search violated the state constitution isn’t a factor on legality of the search under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Breeden, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145729 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 4, 2021). Various factors … Continue reading
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in FedEx packages with drugs sent to a friend’s house in the name of the friend’s deceased brother. United States v. Rose, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20406 (4th Cir. July 9, 2021). When … Continue reading
Defendant has to show his standing to get access to the search warrant application under United States v. Pirk, 282 F. Supp. 3d 585, 594 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). United States v. Cobb, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114405 (W.D. N.Y. June 18, … Continue reading
Defendant who orchestrated delivery of a package whose name wasn’t on it as sender or recipient had standing in the package. United States v. Williams, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88747 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2021):