The officer’s questions about drugs during the mission of a routine traffic stop unreasonably extended the stop, and the dog sniff is suppressed. United States v. Chavez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110229 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2024).
Defendant rented an Airbnb through another with a credit card and had standing. He had keys and a beeper to the place. Essentially, the government didn’t contest this. Armed with an arrest warrant but no reasonable belief defendant was there, the police made a warrantless entry that violated the Fourth Amendment. “Even if the evidence was sufficient to hold that the agents reasonably believed that Cotto-Cruz resided at apartment E-301, the evidence falls short of establishing they had a reasonable belief that he was there at the time they entered the apartment.” United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109685 (D.P.R. June 17, 2024).*
Defendant’s underlying Fourth Amendment claim was decided by the court of appeals on the merits, and his alternative way of raising it also lacked merit. Therefore, no IAC. United States v. Metz, 2024 CAAF LEXIS 345 (C.A.A.F. June 20, 2024).*
This drug search warrant didn’t mention a safe, but that was a place where they could be found, so the search was proper. Also, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Manning, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109676 (S.D. Miss. June 21, 2024).
The district court justified the imposition of a supervised release condition on defendant. United States v. Curry, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15079 (2d Cir. June 21, 2024).*
Defendant’s suppression motion was two years too late. It also alleged no grounds. The district court had the discretion to deny for timeliness alone. United States v. Tarantino, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15122 (11th Cir. June 21, 2024).*
“Defendant has thus failed to show that any alleged omissions in the Yahoo Warrant were material to the finding of probable cause. There is therefore no need for the Court to convene a Franks hearing, and the motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the Yahoo Warrant for lack of probable cause is denied.” United States v. Oztemel, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109660 (D. Conn. June 21, 2024).*
Detention of a package for a day to get a search warrant was a reasonable time. United States v. Black, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14944 (7th Cir. June 20, 2024).
“‘The Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted—indeed for every suspect released.’ Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 n.3 (1979). ‘The Fourth Amendment requires that an arrest be supported by a properly issued arrest warrant or probable cause.’ Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2001). ‘Under the prevailing view in this country a peace officer who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest [even if] the innocence of the suspect is later proved.’ Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 555 (1967). [¶] Our cases make clear that an arresting officer’s state of mind (except for the facts that he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-813 (1996) (reviewing cases); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769 (2001) (per curiam).” Hall v. Trochessett, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14992 (5th Cir. June 20, 2024).*
The failure of defense counsel to get the warrant papers before defendant’s guilty plea doesn’t justify a successor habeas under § 2255(h). In re Wukoson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15019 (11th Cir. June 20, 2024).*
Where the state is relying on the “new crime” exception to the exclusionary rule, it needs to raise it before a motion to reconsider or it’s waived. State v. Rousseau, 2024 N.H. LEXIS 125 (June 18, 2024).
Defendant’s criminal history plus, “[b]ased upon his experience and training, Detective Hourihan concluded Belton engaged in multiple hand-to-hand drug transactions. The presented facts, taken together, support the trial court’s conclusion that the police had a reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop.” State v. Belton, 2024-Ohio-2357 (8th Dist. June 20, 2024).*
“Here, the warrant is sufficiently particular because it limits the scope of the search warrant to the evidence, instruments, and contraband related to the specific incident described in the affidavit of probable cause, thereby limiting the discretion of the officer in searching the vehicle. Further, the warrant itself enumerates seven different crimes the evidence could be connected to, including recklessly endangering another person, carrying a firearm without a license, fleeing a police officer, traffic violations, robbery, and simple assault.” Further, the affidavit accompanied the warrant to the search. United States v. Johnson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108690 (M.D. Pa. June 20, 2024).*
“First, Mr. Smith cannot establish prejudice from his attorney failing to raise the alleged violation of the knock-and-announce requirement as ‘the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence discovered in the ensuing search.’ United States v. Acosta, 502 F.3d 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 599 (2006)). [¶] Second, Mr. Smith failed to provide the Court with any evidence from which it could determine that his counsel’s decision to not file a motion to suppress was unreasonable.” Smith v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108439 (D. Conn. June 19, 2024).*
“After speaking with Mr. Wood regarding the length of his trip, his plan to drive back to Dallas after driving over seven hours, only stopping to get gas and only staying at his friend’s house for thirty minutes, and his inability to provide the names of his two passengers, Sergeant Morgan acquired reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to request a canine to sniff the vehicle for contraband.” State v. Diaz, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1018 (La. App. 1 Cir. June 3, 2024).*
Heck barred this § 1983 case: “Pyles’s version of the facts necessarily implies the invalidity of his conviction because he asserts that he was not guilty of the offense (and that Daily therefore lacked probable cause to arrest).” Pyles v. Daily, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14924 (7th Cir. June 20, 2024).*
Surveillance of him at a stash house and other information provided probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s house. United States v. Ortiz, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14914 (6th Cir. June 18, 2024).*
Defense counsel admitted that the lack of access to the search warrant papers was not prejudicial to the defense. Heath v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 4766 (Fla. 1st DCA June 19, 2024).*
“Defendant asserts that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him because the stop was a pretext to investigate Defendant’s connection with a shooting in Cayey. But the evidence established” objective bases for the stop. United States v. Vazquez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108464 (D.P.R. June 14, 2024).*
Entry onto defendant’s rural land past “Posted” and “No Trespassing” signs to issue a traffic citation was unreasonable. Montanans have a heightened expectation of privacy in their posted rural lands. State v. Lanchantin, 2024 MT 129 (June 18, 2024).
Defendant’s son, a convicted sex offender, provided the information for the search warrant for his electronic devices for child pornography. The court refuses to discredit him completely for probable cause purposes. The affidavit was not bare bones, and there was probable cause and good faith. United States v. Colvin, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108288 (N.D.W. Va. June 18, 2024).*
“[T]he ‘full and fair opportunity’ standard focuses on the procedures available for litigating Fourth Amendment claims, not on the actual litigation process.” Balcacer v. Divris, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107855 (D. Mass. June 18, 2024).*
The record supports the R&R’s conclusion that reasonable suspicion existed for a stop. United States v. Rodriguez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108340 (D.S.D. June 14, 2024).*
Where defendant was stopped under the community caretaking function, expanding the stop without further justification was unreasonable. Here, it was because the officer thought defendant may have been driving while sleepy, but the stop was extended. State v. Wiskowski, 2024 WI 23, 2024 Wisc. LEXIS 204 (June 18, 2024).
“The record does not support Black’s claim that he was in custody during the ‘escalation’ of his traffic stop. Black was not restrained while he was outside of his vehicle. The officers asked Black short and succinct questions to address Officer Saffold’s concerns about the smell of marijuana. Black points to Officer Saffold’s testimony at trial that Black was not free to leave. However, the traffic stop was still ongoing when Black made his statement. Black has not shown how his stop was more coercive than an ordinary traffic stop or Terry stop.” Black v. State, 2024 Miss. App. LEXIS 268 (June 18, 2024).*
Defense counsel on appeal wasn’t ineffective for not raising an unmeritorious Fourth Amendment claim. Scofield v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14846 (6th Cir. June 18, 2024).*
WaPo: Law enforcement is spying on thousands of Americans’ mail, records show by Drew Harwell (“The Postal Service approves thousands of requests every year from police officers and federal agents seeking information from Americans’ letters and packages.”) This is hardly new. I’ve been getting an email with an image of my non-package mail for years. I don’t know how that started, but probably from going to the USPS website. I’m sure they’re thrilled at 90+% being junk mail.
Posted inMail and packages|Comments Off on WaPo: Law enforcement is spying on thousands of Americans’ mail, records show
“Borden argues the officers’ actions indicate they did not actually think a medical emergency existed, but their subjective beliefs are irrelevant. See Toussaint, 838 F.3d at 509. Given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable view of the evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that exigent circumstances — a medical emergency or overdose — existed.” United States v. Borden, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14821 (5th Cir. June 18, 2024).
“[T]he Court finds that the affidavit supports the magistrate’s probable cause determination and that the resulting warrant is not defective. Because the Court concludes that Det. Boner’s qualified statements in the affidavit are accurate, and that any unqualified or inaccurate statements are not necessary for the probable cause finding, the Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing.” United States v. White, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107176 (S.D. W. Va. June 17, 2024).*
The district court didn’t decide part of the claim here that the frisk violated the Fourth Amendment, and the case is remanded for that. Efunnuga v. Farley, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14732 (3d Cir. June 18, 2024).*
There was sufficient justification for the court to order a DNA test in a probate matter, and the order complied with the Fourth Amendment. In re Est. of Kapileo, 2024 N. Mar. I. LEXIS 4 (Superior Ct. June 18, 2024).
“We find that the officers were justified in subjecting Zaller to a protective search for weapons based on his agitated and erratic behavior. Zaller repeatedly refused to comply with the officers’ demands, was argumentative, and was evasive in his conduct. Circumstances such as these have been found sufficient to justify a protective search.” State v. Zaller, 2024-Ohio-2323 (11th Dist. June 17, 2024).*
“The People argue that the district court erred by suppressing the evidence discovered in Johnson’s car based on the court’s conclusion that the officers unlawfully extended the investigatory stop after they arrested Johnson. They contend that Deputy Bacigalupo’s discovery of the pipe supplied the officers with probable cause to arrest Johnson for possession of drug paraphernalia, obviating any requirement for additional reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. We agree.” People v. Johnson, 2024 CO 47 (June 17, 2024).*
“This case concerns whether a search for Internet-related evidence that extended to a previously unknown basement apartment was reasonable, even though the apartment was not specified in the warrant. The supreme court holds that 1) the warrant’s reference to the property’s ‘[h]ouse, garage, and any outbuildings’ was sufficiently specific because there were no outward indicators that the basement apartment existed, and 2) execution of the warrant was reasonable in this specific scenario, where the warrant was for all buildings on the property and the defendant told the police that he lived in the basement and used the IP address that provided grounds for the search.” Dhyne v. People, 2024 CO 45 (June 17, 2024).
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment and sufficiency of evidence claims. United States v. Allen, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106606 (N.D. Ohio June 17, 2024).*
A PO ordering plaintiff to attend their office and wait didn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim. Dorgay v. Reif, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14610 (7th Cir. June 17, 2024).*
“The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, all agree with this conclusion, which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice.” Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 23-50 (U.S. June 20, 2024). More from the syllabus:
Posted in§ 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on SCOTUS: ““The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge.”
An attorney-client letter was obtained by search warrant and it was isolated by the taint team. Because no case was pending at the time, the Sixth Amendment was not violated, and the dismissal or disqualification is an necessary remedy. United States v. Wade, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106344 (D. Utah June 14, 2024).
Defendants reasonably relied on a co-owner’s consent to euthanize a dog. Alternatively, they have qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. Bulfin v. Rainwater, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14595 (8th Cir. June 17, 2024).*
In an overlong jail detention case where plaintiff’s case had been dismissed, the parties didn’t adequately brief the Fourth Amendment question, and the plaintiff’s first amended complaint doesn’t adequately plead a knowing or reckless violation by defendants. The federal claims are dismissed and the state law claims are remanded back for a determination of whether the statute of limitations had expired. Jones v. City of St. Louis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14596 (8th Cir. June 17, 2024).*
Puerto Rico cases on nighttime search aren’t relevant in federal court. United States v. Pastrana-Román, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238527 (D.P.R. March 9, 2023),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106442 (D.P.R. May 17, 2024).*
Defendant didn’t show good cause for delaying in filing his motion to suppress until after the motion deadline. United States v. Bridges, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14559 (7th Cir. June 14, 2024).*
Reasonable suspicion existed for defendant’s stop from not having headlights on in the rain and nearly hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk. United States v. Colvin, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14605 (3d Cir. June 17, 2024).*
“Here, the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged. It took Officer Gregston about six minutes to complete a records inquiry. Within minutes of encountering Austin, the officers had reasonable suspicion to investigate possible criminal activity beyond the traffic violation. The odor of marijuana, Austin’s furtive behaviors suggestive of an attempt to conceal something, and his admission that he had smoked marijuana earlier that day gave the officers reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop.” United States v. Austin, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14599 (8th Cir. June 17, 2024).*
Defendant succeeds in getting hearing on a Franks challenge, making the “substantial preliminary showing.” United States v. Ardis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106369 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024)*:
However, the Court does find that defendant has made a substantial preliminary showing that the following omissions warrant a Franks evidentiary hearing. The affidavit does not include the fact that surveillance footage contradicts several aspects of Hopkins’s story, specifically her assertions that she fell asleep in Landry’s tent while watching the Malcolm X movie and didn’t wake until 2am, and that she went back to her tent and slept until the police detained her shortly after being dropped off at Mother Brown’s. Witness Bradford’s statements also contradict her story because Bradford indicates he last saw Landry at 2am on August 22, 2022 but last saw Hopkins between 11am and 12pm on August 21, 2022. The Court also finds that a substantial preliminary showing that the omission of crime scene investigation information was misleading, including that there were no ShotSpotter activations or reports of shots fired in the relevant time frame, given the amount of time investigators spent inspecting Landry’s tent and the fact that this investigation tends to cast doubt on aspects of Hopkins’s story. These omissions could be misleading, particularly given that Hopkins’s story is the only thing connecting the silver SUV in the surveillance footage to a shooting and all these details cast doubt on the veracity of her story. The government does not address the inconsistencies between the surveillance footage and Hopkins’s story in its opposition. See Dkt. No. 56 at 22-30.
The government contends that there is no showing that any misleading omissions were made intentionally or recklessly. Dkt. No. 56 at 32-33. The Court disagrees; the alleged omissions were within the officer’s personal knowledge, which is the most “commonsense evidence” that an officer acted with at least a reckless disregard for the truth. See Chism, 661 F.3d at 388. Furthermore, the government included a declaration from Inspector Lee along with its opposition that does not address some of the above-identified omissions or addresses them in a conclusory fashion. The government also argues in a conclusory manner that even if the Court were to find the first Franks prong met, Ardis has not shown that any of the allegedly misleading statements were necessary to find probable cause. Dkt. No. 56 at 33. The Court disagrees. Hopkins’s story is the only thing connecting the silver SUV “D” was driving to a shooting, so evidence that throws into doubt aspects of her story is highly relevant and should have been considered in the probable cause determinations, which already relied on thin evidence.
Posted inFranks doctrine|Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Defendant succeeds in getting hearing on a Franks challenge
The probation search of defendant’s home safe was reasonable under Knights, Griffin, and state law. State v. Apple, 2024-Ohio-2286, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 2166 (2d Dist. June 14, 2024).
There was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant in a car, and then probable cause when the police learned that it was stolen. State v. Debose, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 982 (La. App. 4 Cir. June 13, 2024).*
“Because the seizure satisfied plain-view doctrine, it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to raise a meritless Fourth Amendment challenge.” Benjamin v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106103 (E.D. Tenn. June 14, 2024).*
Defendant is a felon who posted to Instagram pictures of him firing guns. The ATF got access to his account, and he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it, even where the ATF agent used a fake name to open an Instagram to communicate with him. As to his car search, “The evidence at trial shows that the officers had probable cause to believe that the weapon Dixson was using at the gun range was in the car, so the search was reasonable.” United States v. Dixson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14520 (6th Cir. June 13, 2024).
2255 petitioner makes no effort to show that the counsel-waived alleged illegal search claim was meritorious. Vasquez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105942 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2024).*
“Defense counsel’s waiver of any contention regarding defendant’s standing to challenge probable cause for the search warrant does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as a challenge to standing ‘had little or no chance of success’ …” People v. Kohmescher, 2024 NY Slip Op 03287 (4th Dept. June 14, 2024).*
Defendant argues dissipation of probable cause in an automobile exception search, but cites no cases. Probable cause always has to exist at the time of the search. One can imagine that it can go stale, but not generally, and not here. United States v. Valdovinos-Tafolla, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105810 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 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.
