“Reasonable grounds” in defendant’s probation search agreement means reasonable suspicion. United States v. Gaston, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18600 (8th Cir. July 29, 2024).
The company here orally consented to an administrative search for a workplace violation. While the notice wasn’t delivered in writing, it was orally explained, and that satisfied the purpose of the statute. Kingsbury Cos., LLC v. Commisioner of Labor, 2024 VT 42, 2024 Vt. LEXIS 47 (July 26, 2024).*
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for not properly cross-examining the searching officer about smelling pot doesn’t show prejudice because he never alleges that the witness was wrong or lying. United States v. Moody, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132199 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2024).*
“A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if the totality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave; while the position of the police vehicle is an important consideration to how a reasonable person would evaluate the encounter, courts must also consider the remainder of the police conduct during the encounter to evaluate whether a seizure has occurred. Additional considerations in evaluating the totality of the circumstances include whether the police clearly meant to initiate contact with the defendant and any relevant social expectations, both of which may make a reasonable person feel they were not free to leave. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed because the totality of the circumstances established that defendant was seized before the officers observed signs of intoxication. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine whether Deputy Jason Pence had reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct when defendant was initially seized. To the extent the Court of Appeals decision in People v Anthony, 327 Mich App 24; 932 N.W.2d 202 (2019), established a bright-line test that a person’s car is seized only if their car is completely blocked in by law enforcement, that decision was overruled as inconsistent with consideration of the totality of the circumstances.” People v. Duff, 2024 Mich. LEXIS 1435 (July 26, 2024) (from the syllabus).
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Seizure|Comments Off on MI: Partially blocking a car can be a seizure, here without RS
In Texas where a private search can be suppressed, defendant showed that his wife accessed his cell phone without his consent, and the search was suppressed. She used his thumb to open the phone while he was asleep. State v. Holloway, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 5327 (Tex. App. – Austin July 26, 2024).
There was probable cause for the search warrant, so the good faith exception doesn’t matter. Stuffed animals in defendant’s bedroom were lawfully seized in plain view where the police knew that defendant’s fentanyl was transported in stuff animals. United States v. Bankhead, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131344 (D. Minn. July 25, 2024).*
In his guilty plea, defendant said his lawyer did everything he asked. In his 2255 he says the lawyer didn’t challenge the search warrant. Which one? How are you prejudiced? Doesn’t say. Denied. Taylor v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131622 (D.S.C. July 25, 2024).*
Defendant concedes his Fourth Amendment argument isn’t preserved, so he attempts to show counsel ineffective, but he doesn’t show he’d prevail on that claim. People v. Shaw, 2024 NY Slip Op 03936 (4th Dep’t July 26, 2024).*
Defendant was stopped based on what the court previously found was a lack of reasonable suspicion from an unreasonable application of law. It previously remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether the exclusionary rule should apply. The court of appeals said it should not. On further review, the state supreme court held that an unreasonable mistake of law should result in exclusion. People v. Lucynski, 2024 Mich. LEXIS 1425, at *2-5 (July 26, 2024):
Officers set up covert Snapchat accounts to communicate with defendant. He’s not entitled to discovery about that for Brady or Franks purposes because he can’t show materiality. United States v. Stroup, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132483 (D. Mass. July 26, 2024).* [At bottom, where’s the reasonable expectation of privacy in a viewable Shapchat account?]
Petitioner’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim so it couldn’t be raised in a 2255. Thirkill v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18272 (6th Cir. July 24, 2024).*
“In arguing that Detective Gillilan did not have reasonable suspicion to investigate the package, Sherrell faces a steep climb from the outset. When a CI provides specific information that is confirmed upon investigation, it is a strong indication of reliability and often justifies reasonable suspicion. … This is true even if the CI has not always been reliable or even if the CI provided only partially accurate information about the events at issue. … And we have held that many of the other indicators of criminal activity that are present here will support an officer’s reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Sherrell, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287 (6th Cir. July 24, 2024).*
“In sum, the Court finds that the failure to comply with each of these clearly-written standardized procedures contributes to a finding that the purported inventory search was improperly conducted.” Also, defendant didn’t have standing to challenge the stop of the vehicle because he wasn’t in it, but he has standing to challenge the inventory because he shows a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Vick, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132355 (D. Mass. July 26, 2024).
The protective sweep was questionable, but consent saves it for the state. State v. Gill, 2024-Ohio-2792 (1st Dist. July 24, 2024).*
Defendant doesn’t really argue that there was no reasonable suspicion for the police interaction here, and there was. United States v. Pankey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130274 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2024).*
2254 petitioner’s claim the state court’s Fourth Amendment decision was wrong or misleading is not enough under Stone v. Powell. Triplett v. Warden, Corr. Ctr. of Nw. Ohio, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130737 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2024).*
As the officer approached the car stopped for suspicion of shoplifting, it was immediately apparent that the occupants did not match the description of the shoplifters he was looking for. The stop should have ended then. Storrs v. Rozeboom, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (8th Cir. July 25, 2024).
Once again, Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims can’t be brought in the Court of Claims. Noll v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2024).*
“When Hemingson turned on his flashing lights to investigate the window tint, the vehicle was seized and the passengers walking away were subject to the officer’s control …. For the same reasons, we agree that Hemingson had probable cause to stop the vehicle and authority to instruct the passengers to stop fleeing the scene. … He tried to detain them to find out who was the driver. Thus, the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the seizure.” State v. Worden, 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 552 (July 24, 2024).*
This case involves a border search of defendant’s cell phone, followed by a search warrant, and child pornography was found. “Sultanov now seeks to suppress both the contents of his cell phones and the statements he made to law enforcement while in the secondary inspection area. In support of his motion to suppress the physical evidence, Sultanov argues that the Fourth Amendment requires the search of a cellular device at the border to be supported by a warrant and probable cause — neither of which was present here. This raises the unsettled issue — one that is percolating among district courts within this Circuit, but which the Second Circuit has not yet addressed — whether the historical exemption to the warrant requirement at the border must yield to the heightened privacy interests implicated by the search of a modern cell phone. Because ‘[c]ell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects’ a traveler might bring across the border, the Court concludes that it must so yield, and that the government should have obtained a warrant before conducting its search. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 393 (2014). Nevertheless, the Court denies Sultanov’s motion to suppress the evidence contained on his phones because the search warrant was issued and executed in good faith.” United States v. Sultanov, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130742 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2024). See Reason: Courts Close the Loophole Letting the Feds Search Your Phone at the Border by Matthew Petti (“Customs and Border Protection insists that it can search electronics without a warrant. A federal judge just said it can’t.”).
Accord: United States v. Fox, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130886 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2024) from a different USDJ:
An officer seizing a firearm in plain view off defendant could run it to see if it was stolen. United States v. Reid, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130770 (E.D. Mo. June 11, 2024).
2255 petitioner’s IAC claim on Fourth Amendment and other issues fails. As for the search and seizure claim, he can’t show that he would prevail [no matter how hard he tries and parses his argument]. Moreover, the claim now is contrary to the facts in the guilty plea. Collins v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129952 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 2024).*
The officer here did not divert from the traffic stop as it progressed, and reasonable suspicion had finally developed. United States v. Baker, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121 (10th Cir. July 23, 2024).*
This stop originated because an officer was watching the video feed from a motel parking lot, a motel known to be “high crime.” A vehicle got his attention, and other officers were called. The stop in question was with reasonable suspicion and, in any event, the drug dog arrived before the ticket could have been written. State v. Boone, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 79 (July 24, 2024).*
“While search and seizure law and property tax law are distinct in their legal frameworks and objectives, the definition of ‘curtilage’ used in search and seizure inquiries under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain any express size or acreage limitations.” “As noted, the Court need not reconcile the differences between the varying definitions of ‘curtilage’ to resolve the question in this case. It is enough that none of the definitions identified by this Court reference fixed size or acreage limitations as a factor. The inquiry depends entirely on other factors, including the presence of a fence or enclosure and, in some formulations, the use of the property itself.” Sawlani v. Lake Cty. Assessor, 2024 Ind. Tax LEXIS 36 n.14 (T.C. July 24, 2024).
On the totality, “[u]pon review of the interrogation and testimony of Investigator Bolte, which it finds credible, the Court concludes it was reasonable for Investigator Bolte to believe Hudson consented to the search of his cell phone.” He voiced wanting to talk to a lawyer, but backed off. United States v. Hudson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129927 (D. Neb. June 14, 2024).*
2241 habeas petitioner filed before conviction while detained in state court. His speedy trial and Fourth Amendment claims have never been presented to state court, and it’s dismissed. Coleman v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129937 (S.D. Miss. June 28, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128447 (S.D. Miss. July 22, 2024).*
Posted inConsent, Curtilage, Issue preclusion|Comments Off on Ind.Tax: There’s a difference between “curtilage” in state tax law and the 4A
“Although the Complexes are correct that the Fourth Amendment applies to the City’s inspectors, the PAIP [rental property inspection program] on its face does not authorize or mandate warrantless searches. Section 6-71, titled ‘Monitoring, inspection, and condition standard,’ does not state that city officials can conduct a search without first obtaining a warrant. Indeed, when considering the Ordinance in the context of the entire ‘Buildings’ section of the City Code, it becomes clear that warrants are contemplated in the building inspection process. As the City explains, the ‘PAIP does not exist in a legal vacuum’ and, as such, it does not need to reiterate the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment—the PAIP does ‘not attempt to subvert the always-applicable warrant protections of the Fourth Amendment.’ For these reasons, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Complexes have failed to show that they were likely to succeed on their Fourth Amendment claim.” SO Apartments, L.L.C. v. City of San Antonio, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18075 (5th Cir. July 23, 2024).
This 2255 petition fails in its ineffective assistance of counsel on a Fourth Amendment claim because he can’t show he could prevail on the merits. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129854 (E.D. Ky. July 2, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129123 (E.D. Ky. July 23, 2024).*
Posted inAdministrative search, Ineffective assistance|Comments Off on CA5: San Antonio’s rental property inspection program doesn’t mandate inspections without warrant; preliminary injunction properly denied
Defendant’s garage is part of his curtilage. This one was connected to the house by a door. The Dorman/McDonald factors in this case favor a finding of exigency for defendant’s detention. (The court has concern that defendant’s statement given during that was involuntary, and that issue can be resolved later.) United States v. Shapiro, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129509 (D. Conn. July 23, 2024).
The consenter stepped aside to let officers in to speak to others inside. “[T]he Court finds that the scope of her consent included the officers’ proceeding to the rear of the apartment to speak with Johnson and Hill in the back room.” Even if she didn’t consent, a protective sweep could have occurred. United States v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129624 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2024).*
“When Trooper Martin said he would write the driver a warning, Trooper Martin had already obtained permission from Mr. Berruquin to search the tractor-trailer but had not yet begun his search of the tractor-trailer. Regardless, by that point,” reasonable suspicion existed. United States v. Berruquin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129665 (E.D. Ark. July 23, 2024).*
This search warrant for multiple cell phones showed enough that multiple cell phones were involved in the offense under investigation, and, thus, the warrant was not overbroad, distinguishing United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017) where there was a lesser showing. United States v. Smith, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17966 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2024).
Ten documents found in the search of Project Veritas were not protected by attorney-client privilege because they involved efforts to conceal the crime, not get legal advice. Meads v. United States (In re Search Warrant Dated November 3, 2021.), 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18023 (2d Cir. July 23, 2024).*
The smell of burnt marijuana in a car is probable cause to search the entire passenger compartment, even two rows back from the front seat. United States v. Jackson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129403 (N.D. Okla. July 23, 2024).*
Officers did not violate defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy by looking in the window of his apartment from a common area in his apartment complex. It was not his curtilage. City of Whitefish v. Zumwalt, 2024 MT 153, 2024 Mont. LEXIS 783 (July 23, 2024).
CBP officers had reasonable suspicion for this border search of defendant’s cell phone. “The Court’s ruling today, particularly in light of Mendez, with its almost identical fact pattern, should come as no surprise. As the Seventh Circuit noted there, ‘in more than 200 years of border search precedent, neither the Supreme Court nor we have ever found a border search unconstitutional.’ 103 F.4th at 1307. This case offers no basis to deviate from that long-standing precedent.” United States v. Hussain, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129133 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2024).*
Defendant’s Franks claim is based on a false assumption of the source of telephone call. United States v. Wright, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129412 (D. Neb. July 22, 2024).*
Denying the state’s motion to quash a criminal subpoena duces tecum issued to social media companies was not error. Under the Stored Communications Act, the trial court allowed the companies an opportunity to be heard, conducted a sufficient analysis of good cause applying the Alhambra factors, and reasonably concluded the material sought could support a claim of self-defense. Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 465 (4th Dist. July 23, 2024).
Even if the automobile exception didn’t apply, inevitable discovery does. The car was going to be inventoried. State v. Goodman, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1171 (La. App. 4 Cir. July 22, 2024).*
The Cherokee Nation search warrant was not so lacking in probable cause that reliance on it was unreasonable. United States v. Holt, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129416 (N.D. Okla. July 23, 2024).*
NYTimes: Gun-Detecting Technology Will Soon Appear in Subway System by Ana Ley & Hurubie Meko (“A set of weapon-screening devices will be deployed at various stations over the course of a month.” “New York City officials will begin testing gun-detecting scanners inside subway stations this week in what they say is an effort to address riders’ concerns about crime. The weapon-detection devices, produced by Evolv Technology, a Massachusetts-based start-up, roughly resemble the metal detectors often found at the entrances of courthouses and concerts.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on NYTimes: Gun-Detecting Technology Will Soon Appear in Subway System
“This appeal presents a question of first impression regarding when the State may be compelled to provide field and health reports of narcotics detection canines in accordance with the Supreme Court’s holding in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013). We granted defendant Justin Morgan leave to appeal from the trial court’s September 1, 2023 order denying his motion to compel discovery of records relating to narcotics detection canine ‘Jocko.’ [¶] We conclude that such records are not per se irrelevant to reliability and probable cause determinations and therefore, the court should have first heard the State’s motion challenging the expert before denying defendant’s motion for discovery. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” State v. Morgan, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78 (July 23, 2024):
Axios: A police drone might respond to your next 911 by Joann Muller & Jessica Boehm (“A new generation of crime-fighting drones is about to take flight, starting in Arizona. Why it matters: Drones are the ultimate first responder. They can be dispatched quickly in an emergency, flying above traffic to assess the situation even before police or firefighters arrive on the scene. But they come with serious privacy concerns that have yet to be addressed.”)
"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.
