Monthly Archives: May 2026

E.D.Tenn.: PO not needed for a parole search

Defendant’s claim of “reverse stalking horse” parole search because the PO wasn’t present fails. There was reasonable suspicion for the search. United States v. Rose, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103581 (E.D. Tenn. May 11, 2026). The government gets the credibility … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: PO not needed for a parole search

CA10: Officer’s peering through 1″ gap in curtains from outside was plain view

Denial of rehearing en banc: United States v. Watkins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13495 (10th Cir. May 11, 2026),* denial of rehearing en banc from United States v. Watkins, 156 F.4th 1049 (10th Cir. 2025):

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA10: Officer’s peering through 1″ gap in curtains from outside was plain view

VI: Cell phone SW didn’t show nexus to crime; possession alone not enough

There was a lack of nexus to cell phone to this alleged crime which voids the search warrant for it, and the good faith exception does not apply. Just having a cell phone on one’s person doesn’t link it to … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Nexus | Comments Off on VI: Cell phone SW didn’t show nexus to crime; possession alone not enough

D.Md.: Mere delay in opening hotel door for arrest warrant didn’t justify protective sweep under the mattress

The protective sweep of defendant’s room is suppressed because the government articulates no reasonable suspicion to believe anyone else was in there. Delay in opening the door isn’t it. Searching between the mattress and box springs was also unreasonable. Waiting … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.Md.: Mere delay in opening hotel door for arrest warrant didn’t justify protective sweep under the mattress

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

OH5: Judge who issued SW could preside at trial

Defendant doesn’t show judicial bias at trial because the trial judge issued the search warrant two years earlier and didn’t remember it until during trial. No affidavit of bias filed. State v. Baker, 2026-Ohio-1628 (5th Dist. May 5, 2026). The … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Independent source, Neutral and detached magistrate, Seizure | Comments Off on OH5: Judge who issued SW could preside at trial

E.D.Va.: SW for WaPo’s reporter’s home and devices violated Privacy Protection Act

The search warrant for a Washington Post reporter’s computers, phone, and files violated the Privacy Protection Act because it was not evidence of a crime or contraband. It also implicates prior restraint on speech. The USMJ’s order that the court … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SW for WaPo’s reporter’s home and devices violated Privacy Protection Act

E.D.N.Y.: Def’s attempt to escape from a warrantless arrest at the door was exigency

Officers came without a warrant to arrest defendant where he was spending the night, and he tried to escape. That was exigency. United States v. Richard, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99358 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2026). Defendant’s presence in someone else’s … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, geofence, Good faith exception, Reasonableness | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Def’s attempt to escape from a warrantless arrest at the door was exigency

N.D.Cal.: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation in federal court of 4A claim lost in state court

Plaintiff fully litigated his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and lost. Collateral estoppel bars him from pursuing a federal claim for the same thing. Pelton v. Amador, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98995 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2026). Defendant faults … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation in federal court of 4A claim lost in state court

CA1 declines to get into whether undocumented persons are “people” with 4A rights

The First Circuit declines to get into the issue of whether an undocumented person here is part of the “people” with Fourth Amendment rights, instead deciding he loses on the merits. United States v. Vizcaíno-Peguero, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13000 … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Immigration arrests, immigration searches, Standing | Comments Off on CA1 declines to get into whether undocumented persons are “people” with 4A rights

E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

The warrant here required “photographing his hands, fingers, and forearms.” The search warrant’s particularity wasn’t violated by manipulating his hands to allegedly mimic what was seen in child pornography photographs off his computer. Search warrants don’t have to specify how … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: SWs don’t have to specify how they’re executed; photos of posed hands not suppressed

Reason: Surveillance Tools Intended for Border Control Are Being Used Against Americans

Reason: Surveillance Tools Intended for Border Control Are Being Used Against Americans by J.D. Tuccille (“U.S. citizens are being monitored and punished with technology meant to battle illegal immigration.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Reason: Surveillance Tools Intended for Border Control Are Being Used Against Americans

LA5: SW for cell phone including “cloud based storage accessible by the device” not overbroad

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone included “or within cloud based storage accessible by the device.” The warrant was not overbroad. State v. Pampas, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 848 (La. App. 5 Cir May 5, 2026). Defense counsel’s failure … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Overbreadth, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on LA5: SW for cell phone including “cloud based storage accessible by the device” not overbroad

WaPo: Second judge maintains DOJ can’t search data seized from Post reporter

WaPo: Second judge maintains DOJ can’t search data seized from Post reporter by Perry Stein& Aaron Schaffer (“The Justice Department had taken a phone and computers belonging to The Washington Post’s Hannah Natanson as part of a leak investigation.”) The … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on WaPo: Second judge maintains DOJ can’t search data seized from Post reporter

S.D.Cal.: Refusal to submit to warrant to show face to open cell phone was admissible at trial

Defendant’s refusal to comply with a search warrant for biometric opening of his cell phone (here, a face scan) was admissible at trial to show consciousness of guilt. “Given that ‘[i]t is today universally conceded that the fact of an … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Admissibility of evidence, Cell phones, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Refusal to submit to warrant to show face to open cell phone was admissible at trial

D.D.C.: Placing firearm on wheel of parked car was abandonment

Police observed defendant place a firearm on the wheel of a parked car where it remained in plain view, and he was later arrested. The firearm was abandoned property, not subject to the search incident doctrine, and the DNA warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Placing firearm on wheel of parked car was abandonment

MD: Hot pursuit can be days later, here exigent CSLI to find alleged murderer on the run

Police had court ordered exigent CSLI from that and a cell site simulator once he was identified as the shooter in a murder 13 days earlier. He was on the run into North Carolina and was eluding capture. This amounted … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Hot pursuit | Comments Off on MD: Hot pursuit can be days later, here exigent CSLI to find alleged murderer on the run

D.D.C.: Alleged illegal arrest doesn’t void DNA SW

Defendant’s allegedly unlawful arrest doesn’t void the later search warrant for a DNA swab based on independent grounds, and not mentioning the alleged illegal arrest. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96554 (D.D.C. May 1, 2026). Driving a … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Burden of pleading, DNA, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Alleged illegal arrest doesn’t void DNA SW

S.D.Fla.: Inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not unreasonable

A “clumsy” inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not an unreasonable inventory. No level of specificity is required. United States v. Samuels, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96304 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2026). The CSAM search warrant here for ten … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Inventory, Overbreadth | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Inventory that omitted “miscellaneous personal items” was not unreasonable

CA4: The fact that ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks

Defendant was charged with witness intimidation for contact with a witness in a criminal case of his. That charge was later dropped, and he sued. Defendants didn’t violate Franks by not mentioning that he never did it again. That’s not … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA4: The fact that ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks