A report through a drunk driving tip line was not anonymous. Even if it were, the officer developed reasonable suspicion before the stop. People v. Dacus, 2024 CO 51, 2024 Colo. LEXIS 565 (June 24, 2024).*
Defendant’s arrest on a warrant for violation of supervised release was justified. He showed up on a particular Greyhound bus he was expected to be on allegedly with drugs. United States v. Singletary, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124141 (W.D.N.Y. July 15, 2024).*
“The law enforcement officers, under these circumstances, had a reasonable basis for believing that Defendant consented to the search of his home. Defendant took multiple affirmative steps—such as requesting that his handcuffs be covered when he entered the apartment, providing law enforcement officers with details about the layout of the apartment and where the contraband was located, and assisting the officers open the safe in his bedroom—which clearly establish that his consent to search his home was voluntary. The Court holds that the government has met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant voluntarily provided consent to search his home.” United States v. Gallimore, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124462 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2024).*
Exposure to Covid-19 in prison didn’t state a Fourth or Eighth Amendment claim. Dingle v. Tommage, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124710 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2024).
Defendant was driving with a suspended license, and WVSP protocol dictated impoundment of the car. The inventory led to the finding of meth, and that justified a full search under the automobile exception. United States v. DeSantis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17421 (4th Cir. July 16, 2024).*
A reasonable jury could conclude excessive force was used and that defendant violated clearly established rights. Selto v. Cty. of Clark, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17390 (9th Cir. July 16, 2024).*
2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by Stone. Alcantara v. Warden of McCormick Corr. Inst., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124014 (D.S.C. July 15, 2024).*
“Here, the affidavit easily meets the standard of probable cause. Defendants would require a level of skepticism that is not appropriate to the oversight at this juncture. The scheme to defraud was amply established by the affiant and so was the link to KSC. [¶] Frankly, somewhat more troubling is the argument that the warrant lacked particularity as to the items to be seized, despite the length of the list. Ultimately, however, the court concludes that the warrant did not lack particularity as to the items to be seized.” United States v. Verzaleno, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124691 (D. Md. July 16, 2024).*
“Defendant admits, both in briefing and at oral argument, that the warrant application established probable cause to conclude that (1) he committed the subject offenses; (2) he resided at the La Madre residence; and (3) at least some of his employees worked at the Charleston office. He admits also that the agent’s affidavit established a nexus between the searched premises and defendant and his business. Instead, defendant hangs his hat on the argument that the warrant application did not establish a nexus between the searched premises and defendant’s alleged offenses sufficient to justify a finding of probable cause. But defendant’s argument implicitly both overstates the extent of the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment and understates the strength of the showing made to Magistrate Judge Ferenbach in the search warrant application.” “Thus, a sufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activities and the place to be searched ‘does not require direct evidence and may be based on reasonable inference from the facts presented based on common sense and experience.’” United States v. Zeitlin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124589 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2024).*
“The district court concluded, after weighing Defendant’s diminished possessory interest in the tablet and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, that under the circumstances, the nineteen-day delay between when the tablet was seized and when a search warrant was obtained was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We agree and affirm.” State v. Padilla, 2024 N.M. App. LEXIS 38 (July 15, 2024).
2255 petitioner’s Franks claim fails for no substantial preliminary showing of materiality. United States v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123807 (S.D. Miss. July 15, 2024).*
Tinted windows in the vehicle defendant was a passenger in doesn’t create a reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Ellison, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123906 (E.D. Ky. July 11, 2024).*
Yale New Haven Hospital security were not state actors for the Fourth Amendment. With the hospital, they were investigating drug tampering from a dispensing machine. United States v. Falzarano, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124545 (D. Conn. July 15, 2024).*
With a late night stop of a person that had a drug history and the officer was outnumbered, it was prudent to call for backup before the dog sniff, and the total elapsed time wasn’t that much. The court of appeals says there was no reasonable suspicion. State v. Kincaid, 2024-Ohio-2668, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 2558 (4th Dist. July 5, 2024) (So, no reasonable suspicion, but it doesn’t matter? This is just wrong.):
“Nor is it the goal of a Franks hearing for a defendant to raise an ‘attack’ on an affidavit through ‘conclusory’ allegations ‘supported by [only] a mere desire to cross-examine.’ See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Because the Franks motion would not have succeeded, it was not deficient performance not to file it and the failure did not cause Mayer prejudice. See Denson, 804 F.3d at 1342. For the same reasons, Mayer’s counsel’s decision not to file the motion can be considered a sound strategic decision, further cementing that it was not deficient performance. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1314.” Mayer v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17240 (11th Cir. July 15, 2024).*
A false imprisonment claim is a “new context” for Bivens and is dismissed. Summary judgment on the FTCA claim is affirmed, too. Hornof v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17242 (1st Cir. July 15, 2024).*
Use of software to search a cell phone did not violate the particularity of the warrant. The Fourth Amendment and the state constitution are intended to prevent a general rummaging, and the use of software facilitates people not looking at things not contraband. “This did not permit a general rummaging; it was akin to a warrant allowing a search of a residence for controlled substances and indicia of ownership.” State v. Ortega, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 1367 (July 11, 2024).
The first time informant here was really a witness to defendant’s possession of child porn on his cell phone because she saw it looking at his phone. Inevitable discovery is also found to apply. State v. O’Neal, 2024 S.D. 40 (July 10, 2024).*
Defendant’s firearm was in plain view in his waistband when he got out of the car. United States v. Walker, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123419 (N.D. Ohio July 12, 2024).*
On the totality, defendant consented to the search. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123437 (N.D. Ga. July 12, 2024).*
The court finds officers baiting defendant into a recorded phone call where he was under a protective order and could not adequately respond “shocked the conscience” and would be suppressed. State v. Lewis, 2024 UT App 96, 2024 Utah App. LEXIS 99 (July 11, 2024).
The officer’s tackling plaintiff on a highway overpass was with qualified immunity because plaintiff was resisting and there was a danger of traffic and falling off the bridge. Johnson v. City of Atlanta, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17161 (11th Cir. July 12, 2024).*
Petitioner’s claim that the search warrant for his property was defective under the state Racial Justice Act fails for no allegations. Washington v. Superior Court, 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3600 (July 10, 2024).*
The officer’s approximation of the weight of drugs isn’t necessarily false or even material for Franks. United States v. Gist-Holden, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17178 (7th Cir. July 11, 2024).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Qualified immunity, State constitution|Comments Off on UT: Def satisfied “shocking the conscience” standard for recording a telephone call while under a protective order and he couldn’t fully respond
Asking a person about whether he has anything on him about sharp objects is reasonable and related to the frisk. Any admission cannot, however, be used to justify the frisk. United States v. Freeman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123297 (D. Md. July 11, 2024):
The Baton Rouge PD’s strip search policy of detainees in an investigative stop on less than probable cause is enjoined. “[T]he Court finds that, for any search beyond a frisk or pat-down of a citizen stopped pursuant to an investigatory stop, the Constitution requires that police officers have probable cause. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that the pertinent portion of the BRPD strip search policy as to non-arrestees is unconstitutional on its face.” Lee v. Lawrence, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122765 (M.D. La. July 12, 2024).
Petitioner’s search claim was decided on direct appeal and can’t be raised in a 2255. Coleman v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122476 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2024).*
Defendant was suspected of USPS mailbox break-ins, and the tracking warrant on his car led to another warrant based on alleged probable cause. The court doesn’t even have to decide probable cause because the good faith exception is evident. United States v. Demezier, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124537 (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122785 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2024).*
Being seen in NOLA “drug hot spots” doesn’t add anything to reasonable suspicion. Suppression affirmed. State v. Tate, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1107 (La. App. 4 Cir. July 11, 2024).
The complainant’s telling the police of being drugged for sex and finding videos of it taken by defendant on his cell phone was probable cause for this warrant. People v. Giacopelli, 2024 NY Slip Op 50869, 2024 NYLJ LEXIS 2157 (Putnam Co. July 9, 2024).*
Leave to file a successor habeas denied. This is a reiteration of a Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel claim already denied. In re Simpkins, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17091 (11th Cir. July 11, 2024).*
Excessive force claims are new for Bivens, and rejected. Here, it was his restraint in a courtroom by US Marshals and CSOs. Edwards v. Gizzi, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17100 (2d Cir. July 12, 2024).
Plaintiff was shot in the eye with a chemical projectile during a George Floyd protest. Factual disputes preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity for the officer. Marks v. Bauer, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17076 (8th Cir. July 12, 2024).*
It was not clearly established that the use of force with the intent to disperse or repel a crowd constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17069 (8th Cir. July 12, 2024).*
“We hold that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a claim that his use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment when he fired at a suspect of a potentially violent crime who, despite repeated commands, charged the officer at full speed and advanced to close proximity to the officer. Such conduct was not objectively unreasonable and, even if it was, did not violate clearly established law.” Rambert v. City of Greenville, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17127 (4th Cir. July 12, 2024).*
Even if defendant’s CSLI was erroneously admitted at trial, it was harmless on this record. State v. Roberts, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 4847 (Tex. App. – Waco July 11, 2024).
Leave to file a successor 2255 denied. The Fourth Amendment argument here is merely looking at it a different way, and that’s not arguing a new constitutional rule. In re Rogers, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17053 (6th Cir. July 11, 2024).*
The stop was with reasonable suspicion defendant was armed, and he was a murder suspect. Defendant was detained, but not under arrest. The search was by consent. Most of the factors for consent on the totality favor the government. Guam v. Babauta, 2024 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 113 (July 1, 2024).*
Here there were two vehicles stopped. Defendant was a passenger in one, and he had no standing in either merely being a co-conspirator to a drug operation. United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16803 (11th Cir. July 10, 2024).
Defendant’s cell phone was seized at the border, and a search warrant was obtained for it nine days later. The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Nkongho, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16842 (4th Cir. July 10, 2024).*
The USMJ found the Fourth Amendment violated because the stop was extended without reasonable suspicion, but the good faith exception should apply in any event. “Weighing all of the circumstances and factors together, the court finds that a reasonable officer could suspect that Hamdan was a felon and possessed a gun. Thus, the court finds Leacraft had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop, see Callison, 2 F.4th at 1132, and so did not violate Hamdan’s Fourth Amendment rights when he pulled Hamdan out of the vehicle.” United States v. Hamdan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122233 (D.S.D. July 10, 2024).*
Defendant was in the Marine Corps and a Command Authorized Search and Seizure (CASS) for his electronic devices was executed for child pornography. It was sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. “In this case, the challenged warrant did not have to ‘delineate each and every’ device by their assigned IP addresses because searching all of the devices was a reasonable investigative measure based on the nature of the suspected offenses.” The CASS search could be used in federal court. United States v. Fritzinger, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120570 (E.D.N.C. July 10, 2024).
Defendant was stopped by a park ranger for a tag violation. That led to seeing marijuana in the car door, and that led to finding meth. It was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Perkins, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17022 (5th Cir. July 11, 2024).*
“The Court finds Detective Michaud’s testimony credible. Thus, regardless of whether law enforcement officers subjectively hoped to find evidence of other crimes, Detective Michaud observed a traffic violation. Therefore, the initial traffic stop was reasonable for purposes of analysis under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Riley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122001 (D.S.C. July 11, 2024).*
A cell phone found with drugs had its incriminating nature immediately apparent for plain view. United States v. Fernandez-Santos, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121462 (D.P.R. July 8, 2024).
In an illegal entry case, identification evidence allegedly illegally seized is not suppressible. United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano, 721 F.3d 345, 351 (5th Cir. 2013). United States v. Mejia-Estrada, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121756 (W.D. Tex. July 11, 2024).*
The government had reasonable suspicion to seize and search defendant’s cell phone at Atlanta airport customs for being involved in financial scams. CPB in Chicago warned Atlanta he was coming in. United States v. Eta, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121908 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2024).*
Kicking off one’s sneakers when police asked for them was consent. Commonwealth v. Rodrigues, 2024 Mass. App. LEXIS 91 (July 11, 2024).
This search warrant in a RICO case adequately showed probable cause for defendant’s cell phone. United States v. Cortez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17002 (1st Cir. July 11, 2024).*
Information for defendant’s stop was passed from one group of officers through 911 and dispatch to another. It satisfies collective knowledge. United States v. Ayala, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121597 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2024).*
The stop here was with reasonable suspicion based on officers seeing an apparent drug transaction. United States v. Allison, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121703 (W.D. Pa. July 11, 2024).*
A search warrant in a robbery case looked for stolen property and the mask involved. When police executed the warrant, they found his cell phone with him wearing the mask as the wallpaper image on the phone. “We find without merit defendant’s contention that the search warrant application was insufficient as a matter of law because it relied on hearsay. In our opinion, it is unclear what hearsay defendant is referring to, as he makes only a cursory mention of this in his brief. Regardless, ‘an affidavit by a police officer which is based upon the observations made by a fellow police officer when the two are engaged in a common investigation furnishes a reliable basis for the warrant’”. [Nearly all warrants are based on hearsay.] Defendant’s lack of probable cause claim wasn’t made below and wasn’t preserved. People v. Montgomery, 2024 NY Slip Op 03781, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3843 (3d Dept. July 11, 2024).
Allowing a police dog to continue biting a suspect violates clearly established law. Rosenbaum v. City of San Jose, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16975 (9th Cir. July 11, 2024).*
There was probable cause for this warrant, and, even if not, reliance on it was in good faith. United States v. Gladden, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16997 (11th Cir. July 11, 2024).*
That searching officers didn’t leave behind Attachment B to the warrant after the search didn’t void the search. United States v. Whaley, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 16819 (2d Cir. July 10, 2024).
Collective knowledge here fails: “Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is manifest that the vertical knowledge doctrine was not established here. Although it would be naive to ignore the fact that law enforcement agencies work closely together in executing arrests such as this one, the Government still has the burden to detail facts connecting the Inspection Service and the PRPB—something that was not done here. Consequently, to uphold the vital constitutional protections that the Fourth Amendment affords persons in Defendants’ situation, it is the Government alone which must bear the adverse consequences of its choice to rely on a witness with limited personal knowledge surrounding the details of the case.” United States v. Piñeiro-Castro, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121461 (D.P.R. July 10, 2024).*
"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.
