Daily Archives: February 2, 2026

D.S.D.: “Dismissal of an indictment is not an appropriate remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation.”

“Dismissal of an indictment is not an appropriate remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Chavez, 705 F.3d 381, 386 (8th Cir. 2013).” It may be for a due process violation. United States v. Pryor, 2026 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Staleness, Waiver | Comments Off on D.S.D.: “Dismissal of an indictment is not an appropriate remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation.”

N.D.Ga.: 28-day delay in getting SW for phones wasn’t unreasonable here

Defendant was driving a car with a fraudulent VIN but claimed he knew nothing about that, having borrowed the car. Other things in the car added to probable cause to believe he was involved in frauds, and that ultimately led … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: 28-day delay in getting SW for phones wasn’t unreasonable here

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

ND: When the main way into a house is through the garage, no violation of curtilage to enter

While this house was being worked on, the way in was through the garage and door inside there, not the front door. Therefore, police were able to come through the garage to knock. Therefore, no violation of curtilage making the … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on ND: When the main way into a house is through the garage, no violation of curtilage to enter

CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant

No qualified immunity for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant. Gibson v. City of Portland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026). As to Franks: “Even if there were a material omission, inclusion … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant