Defendant was convicted of resisting arrest without violence. The jury was properly instructed that the officers could enter his home on an arrest warrant. Martinez v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 6538 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 21, 2024).
Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim fails as to those allegedly involved in his arrest. They separately prevailed on statute of limitations grounds. Tulis v. Orange, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21018 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024).*
There was probable cause for the warrant, and, in event, the good faith exception would apply. United States v. Simpson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148512 (W.D. La. July 30, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146963 (W.D. La. Aug. 15, 2024).*
A citation to appear in court is not a seizure for malicious prosecution purposes. Riles v. Okla. Atty. General’s Office, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148619 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024).*
“In similar fashion, the officer in our case did not need to first reach a state of ‘absolute certitude’ before forming a probable cause belief that careless driving had occurred. While there were numerous possibilities that could have presented a complete defense to careless driving, it was not the responsibility of the patrol officer to rule those out before making the stop. His observations were enough to create a reasonable belief that Crume’s actions had endangered life or property. For these reasons, we reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings.” State v. Crume, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 6529 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 21, 2024).
2255 petitioner’s claim defense counsel was ineffective for not adequately arguing the motion to suppress is rejected as conclusory. Duncan v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21004 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024).*
A car police that had been seen recklessly driving before was seen idling in a parking lot known for drug trade had a fictitious plate. That was reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Tate, 2024 La. LEXIS 1140 (Aug. 20, 2024).*
The stop was concededly valid, and a warrant was found. Verifying that the warrant is still out is not an unreasonable extension of the stop. United States v. Colquhoun, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149487 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 21, 2024). [Defendant here complains that the government wanted it both ways, except it doesn’t. The police were prudent in seeking to verify the warrant before arresting. We’ve seen cases here where the warrant was bad or actually withdrawn and the defendant complains they didn’t check it out. They did what they were supposed to do.]
“Dufour used unconstitutionally excessive force and that the violation of the Fourth Amendment was clearly established at the time of the incident. … Black argues that Dufour handcuffing him on the ground was excessive because it ‘was a complete form of imprisonment.’ But Black would have to allege more than a de minimis use of force to establish that Dufour’s actions rose to the level of a constitutional violation. … Although Dufour did hold Black at gunpoint, that threat of force was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Black v. Dufour, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21126 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2024).*
There was probable cause; so the Franks challenge is irrelevant. “What matters is whether, based upon the uncontested portions of the affidavit, ‘there [was] a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found in’ [the place searched]. … That standard easily was met on this record.” United States v. Sawyers, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148323 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2024).*
Reason: Limit Government’s Use of Surveillance Technology Before It’s Too Late by Steven Greenhut (“In that relatively short time, humanity has become accustomed to a level of technological intrusion that was previously unfathomable. Most of us have mixed feelings. We’ve seen great advancements in medicine, food production, manufacturing, and information, but our society also has built the infrastructure for a frighteningly intrusive government.”).
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Reason: Limit Government’s Use of Surveillance Technology Before It’s Too Late
Defendant was entitled to discovery of the drug dog’s records to determine the dog’s reliability. State v. Morgan, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 88 (Aug. 21, 2024).
Suspicionless supervised release searches are reasonable when applied to child porn offenders. United States v. Olson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20990 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2024).*
Erratic driving and fishtailing led to the stop and then there were furtive movements inside the car. That’s reasonable suspicion. Mecklenburg Cty. v. LeGette, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 635 (Aug. 20, 2024).*
The backpack search here was valid as both search incident and inevitable as inventory on defendant’s arrest. United States v. Cobb, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20944 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2024).*
The fact a car smells of marijuana but none was found doesn’t mean the officer wasn’t credible. United States v. Wardlow, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148359 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2024):
Posted inPlain view, feel, smell|Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Fact no MJ was found despite car strongly smelling of it doesn’t mean officer wasn’t credible
There was probable cause for a dog sniff warrant at defendant’s apartment door. There was also probable cause for the warrant for his vehicle. The use of an unwitting informant doesn’t negate probable cause (collecting cases). United States v. Turner, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147348 (D. Minn. Aug. 19, 2024).*
The officer’s testimony and the video show two valid justifications for defendant’s stop. United States v. Turk, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147961 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2024).*
“A prudent person with the officers’ knowledge and experience would be more than just suspicious that Defendant Counts open-carried a firearm; in fact, he brandished it in front of them. Therefore, assuming an arrest occurred [and not just a stop], the arrest was valid and the ensuing search incident to arrest justified the recovery of the firearms.” United States v. Counts, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148039 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2024).*
Defendant filed a motion to suppress under Franks. Later it was withdrawn. The time in between was excludable for speedy trial purposes. People v. Forbes, 2024 IL App (3d) 230152 (Aug. 19, 2024).*
The search was reasonable when viewed objectively, and the superior court is reversed. “We have reviewed the video from the two officers’ body-worn cameras, which were admitted into evidence at the hearing on the motion. Viewed objectively, we see no violations of the Fourth Amendment. Officer Booth was permitted to order Ramirez ‘to exit the vehicle without any articulable justification.’ (See Hoyos, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 893.) Therefore, we reverse the dismissal order and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to deny Ramirez’s motion to suppress evidence.” People v. Ramirez, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 512 (4th Dist. Aug. 20, 2024). The DA, however, said stupid things in his brief:
After being acquitted in a bench trial on interpretation of the statute involved, plaintiff sued for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The arrest warrant was issued on probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate, and the officers had to rely on the probable cause finding. The case fails. [Also, the acquittal appears baseless.] Rovin v. State, 2024 Md. LEXIS 313 (Aug. 15, 2024).
The officer here was on foot patrol in an apartment complex known as a high crime area, and he encountered defendant armed with a handgun who tried to conceal it and then flee. That was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Gomez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20837 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2024).*
Defendant’s traffic offense was reasonable suspicion for this stop, and the officer could order him out of the vehicle under Mimms. State v. Wright, 2024-Ohio-3142 (9th Dist. Aug. 19, 2024).*
The warrant for defendant’s cell phone wasn’t issued for a week, but the delay was reasonable. He was in jail with a diminished privacy interest, and he didn’t ask for it back. United States v. Watson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20894 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024). [Like a man in custody knows he has to ask for his cell phone back when he can’t even possess it.]
Defendant was seized on the street when he was blocked in by two officers and a car and would have to brush past them to get away. This stop was without reasonable suspicion, and it is suppressed. United States v. Dozier, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146790 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2024).*
The court declines to require under the Commonwealth Charter of Rights that a person requested to give a BAC sample be advised of the right to refuse. El Pueblo de P.R. v. De Jesús, 2024 TSPR 87, 2024 PR Sup. LEXIS 84 (Aug. 12, 2024).* (Translation by Google.)
Defendant can’t raise an illegal search warrant issue on appeal without putting the search warrant materials in the record. Brown v. State, 2024 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 629 (Aug. 14, 2024).*
Defendant was stopped for out-of-bounds camping by a park ranger. The conversation led to reasonable suspicion then to probable cause for a search. United States v. Gearhart, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146610 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2024). Obviously, vehicle stops don’t have to be based on only traffic offenses.
The affidavit showed probable cause to search defendant’s storage unit. (Included were references to urgent calls from jail to get stuff out of there.) State v. Simpson, 2024-Ohio-3116 (1st Dist. Aug. 16, 2024).*
Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP on appeal of his § 1983 case dismissal. His claim isn’t in good faith that an arrest warrant is required for arrest on a felony. Neal El v. Showman, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20783 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*
2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance claim fails for not showing he could win on the merits. Heller v. Warden of Lee Corr. Inst., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146572 (D.S.C. July 23, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142867 (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2024).*
“To start, the Instagram video that showed Brown, McCullers, and others waving firearms and pointing them directly at the camera provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to stop the two men. That’s because, under Virginia law, it is ‘unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm … in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another.’” United States v. Brown, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20763 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2024).
Failure to allege which employees conducted an allegedly unconstitutional administrative search required those claims be dismissed. Macy v. CSA-18 Special Dists. Pub. Works, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145888 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2024).*
WaPo: Alaska troopers brutally beat man in mistaken arrest, prosecutors say (“Two Alaska State Troopers have been charged with assault for pepper spraying, beating and ordering a dog to bite a man who they wrongly believed had a warrant out for his arrest in an allegation of police violence that the state’s top public safety authority called unprecedented. … After the incident, Tikka reported an open bite on his left arm, multiple fractures and lacerations on his triceps and head. The troopers mistook Tikka for his cousin, who has the same last name.” They never asked his name.)*
“In sum, the search warrant affidavit contained considerably more than the mere fact that Bell was arrested with the cell phone on his person. Rather, law enforcement found the cell phone on Bell’s person near ‘the very drugs’ he has been charged with possessing, Merriweather, 728 F.App’x at 506, and along with a digital scale and cash, which are ‘tools of the [drug] trade.’ United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634, 637 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the search warrant affidavit contained sufficient probable cause to search Bell’s cell phone. See United States v. Lavallis, 515 F. Supp. 3d 686, 691 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (concluding that ‘probable cause to search a cell phone exists simply because cell phones discovered in proximity to crime or contraband almost invariably contain incriminating evidence’).” United States v. Bell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146061 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2024).
The CI’s statement was sufficiently corroborated by the officers to show probable cause. United States v. Burrell, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20652 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*
Just because the jailer here slammed the door on plaintiff’s hand, unless it was objectively unreasonable, there is no liability. Plaintiff can’t show that it was intentional or reckless. Acosta v. Williamson Cty., No. 23-50777, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20677 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*
Officers responded to a domestic disturbance call and heard shouting inside that made them believe there was a fight inside. Summary judgment for the officers in a warrantless entry case was properly granted. Ramirez v. Killian, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20670 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).
Handcuffing and keeping plaintiffs face down on the street while investigating on alleged reasonable suspicion their car was stolen was excessive. Chinaryan v. City of L.A., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20465 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*
It was not objectively unreasonable to arrest plaintiffs for disorderly conduct for wearing apparent body armor to school, even though the disorderly case was dismissed. The officers had qualified immunity. Evans v. Cabot Sch. Dist., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20587 (8th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).* [Just surmising from the district court’s opinion, one of the plaintiffs was on the spectrum because he “could not read facial expressions very well.”]
Probable cause and good faith arguments about three images of child pornography in the affidavit out of 121 total, were more toward a defense of the charge and do not undermine probable cause. United States v. Murphy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145547 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 15, 2024).
“Vizcarrondo argues that a police officer lied in a search warrant affidavit and that the Government failed to disclose the misrepresentation. Even if we credited Vizcarrondo’s claim that the police officer lied in the affidavit, he still fails to establish that the officer’s misconduct would have materially affected his decision to plead guilty. And his actions bear this out: Even after the prosecution told him about the officer’s misconduct and subsequent resignation, Vizcarrondo chose not to change his guilty plea. Consequently, he has failed to show that the police officer’s alleged lie meaningfully influenced his decision to plead guilty.” United States v. Vizcarrondo, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20642 (4th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*
Defendant had standing over a shipped package of drugs. Although there was a fictitious name on it, he had arranged and paid for someone else to receive it, and that showed sufficient control to have standing. But, after all that, he loses on the merits of the search. There was probable cause. United States v. Otero-Lugo, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145315 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2024).* [Most courts would disagree with the standing issue here.]
The search warrant here was based on an unconstitutional prior entry to photograph firearms, and the issuing magistrate wasn’t told about that. That was material. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Mahama, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145463 (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2024).
Seeing the handle of an AR-15 protruding below defendant’s book bag justified a stop without even having to consider that he “possessed a permit to carry legally a weapon concealed on his person. The contention that there may not have been any outwardly visible criminal activity in progress before the officers’ approach is immaterial to the legality of that initial approach because, contrary to the defendant’s position, police are not required to have reasonable suspicion of a crime merely to approach a citizen in a public place and ask him questions. Florida v. Bostick ….” United States v. Grant, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144893 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2024).*
Officers had information that a person wanted with a warrant was in a hotel room. Four went for a knock-and-talk. Defendant, who was not the wanted person, answered the door and didn’t say who she was, but it was apparent she wasn’t the person wanted. Officers saw furtive movement of another person behind her, and that created exigency to enter. United States v. Grant, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144893 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2024).*
Six months of GPS monitoring of defendant on supervised release was tailored to him and not an abuse of discretion. It was a burden, but those on supervised release have far diminished expectations of privacy. United States v. Ellis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20493 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024):
Posted inGPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on CA4: GPS monitoring for first six months of supervised release was not abuse of discretion [subtext: seems reasonable]
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rock, Miller allowed the canine to continue biting Rock even though he was unarmed, did not present an immediate threat to the officers or others, and did not resist or actively evade arrest. Watkins, 145 F.3d at 1093 (allowing canine to bite suspect for ‘excessive duration’ violated clearly established law); Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994) (observing that ‘excessive force has been used when a deputy sics a canine on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control’). Officer Miller is thus not entitled to qualified immunity.” Rock v. Miller, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20466 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*
“But the above-cited cases recognize that the presence of an ‘immediate threat’ is but a single factor in the analysis. Time-wise, the immediacy of the threat is obviously different when the threat of serious physical harm is letting a dangerous felon escape into the community, not a face-to-face encounter with the officer using deadly force. ‘To determine whether a person is an immediate threat, an officer may consider both the person’s present and prior conduct.’ … We consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating excessive force claims, ‘including the severity of the crime at issue.’ … Deputy McClinton is entitled to qualified immunity from Arnold’s § 1983 excessive force claim.” Arnold v. McClinton, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20434 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*
The disputed facts don’t resolve the excessive force claim here. Interlocutory appeal dismissed. Davis v. Allen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20459 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).*
Posted inExcessive force, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on CA9: Dog handler allegedly allowing police dog to excessively bite ptf denied QI
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“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, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"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]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"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." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
