CA6: Entering land to post a notice of civil infraction from the property was not a “search”

“The crux of the Gammarinos’ [Fourth Amendment] argument is that the Defendants entered their properties and removed their personal property without a warrant. As a result, they claim these searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. Yet entering land to post notice of a civil infraction is not a Fourth Amendment search and thus does not require a warrant. … And seizing property that has been declared a public nuisance is reasonable, provided that the property owner has been provided constitutionally adequate due process. … Because the Gammarinos received adequate due process, the abatement actions did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure.” Gammarino v. Sycamore Twp., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5181 (6th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025).

“Based on a totality of the circumstances, the affidavit contained sufficient facts to give rise to the requisite level of probable cause for issuing the search warrant. Accordingly, this Court recommends the District Judge find that the evidence obtained resulting from the search warrant should not be suppressed. [¶] Even if there was no probable cause for the search warrant, the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” United States v. Shumny, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39444 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2025).* Virtually the same holding: United States v. Washington, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39440 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38827 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2025).*

Defense counsel didn’t argue CSLI was improperly obtained because it was important to argue defendant had no connection to that phone. United States v. Carter, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39425 (D. Mass. Mar. 5, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.