Questions posed during a traffic stop while waiting for the records check to come back do not extend the stop. People v. Felix, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 154 (2d Dist. Mar. 7, 2024).
Defendant’s bad search claim as part of a motion for new trial is not based on newly discovered evidence and is denied. United States v. Fredrickson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5529 (7th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024).*
Defendant’s stop for a temporary tag in an over tinted window that couldn’t be seen was justified. The smell of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. Defendant’s ruse claim fails. State v. Kelsey, 2024-Ohio-806 (6th Dist. Mar. 1, 2024).*
Defendant’s improper lane change was seen in the rearview mirror, so it’s not on dashcam. The officer’s testimony is credited, and the stop was lawful. United States v. Spencer, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40100 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2024).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Waiver|Comments Off on Cal.2d: Questions posed during a traffic stop while waiting for the records check to come back do not extend the stop
Prison inmates stated a claim where their prison calls to their lawyers were recorded by the provider without their knowledge. “ICS’ contention that the recording here was proper because inmates have a lowered expectation of privacy is inapplicable. First, while inmates may have less privacy in their communications with non-attorneys, they retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their privileged communications to their attorneys. … Further, the facts alleged in the Complaint indicate that Plaintiffs did not give their prior consent to have the conversations recorded and took steps to prevent any such recording.” Wertz v. Inmate Calling Sols., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39892 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2024).
Defendant’s stop on foot for allegedly dealing drugs was based on an untested and unverified CI, and it lacked reasonable suspicion. His criminal record adds nothing. United States v. Evans, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39601 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2024).*
Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant, and he was in another person’s place without permission. Steagald is to protect the homeowner. Payton authorized the entry. United States v. Brown, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38946 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 6, 2024).*
Defendant’s stop for a loud muffler was reasonable. His claim that it wasn’t loud on the bodycam is rejected. Another alleged offense cited the wrong statute. That’s a reasonable mistake of law. State v. Braucher, 2024-Ohio-811, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 752 (5th Dist. Mar. 7, 2024).
Defendant was around Washington DC and posted that he had a detonator in his van. The stop and search of his car was reasonable and with probable cause. United States v. Taranto, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38859 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2024).*
Officers responding to a shooting call saw a firearm in the yard. It could be seized because of exigency. Also, the area wasn’t curtilage: “[E]ven assuming the firearm was seized prior to the issuance of the warrant, there would be no Fourth Amendment violation because the narrow passage between the building and a neighboring property did not constitute the curtilage of the first-floor apartment.” United States v. Moye, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39614 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2024).*
The search warrant for defendant’s house included the detached garage on the curtilage without having to mention it. United States v. Ronquillo, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5489 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024).
“And the Department of Homeland Security officers did not otherwise violate Juan-Cano’s Fourth Amendment rights because they had reasonable suspicion to stop his car, and Juan-Cano voluntarily informed officers that he lacked legal documentation to be in the United States.” Juan-Cano v. Garland, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5395 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2024).*
The renter of a hotel room allowed someone else with him to use it, but he retained a key and the police saw him come and go from that room. He had actual authority to consent to a search of the room even if he wasn’t staying there. State v. Gray, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 107 (Mar. 6, 2024).*
Prior knowledge defendant might have marijuana in his car didn’t require the police to get a search warrant for the car. The automobile exception still applied. [Eight months afterward, NJ legalized marijuana.] State v. Baker, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 24 (Mar. 7, 2024).
The affidavit for search warrant was alleged to have misleading information in it, but defendant proffers nothing to support it. Indeed, at the time of the entry, what the officers found matches what the CI told them. United States v. Woodard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38744 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2024).*
The officer did not violate Franks by not mentioning that he was new in this type of case and was self taught. And, “The search warrant affidavit states, ‘The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and experiences, and information obtained from other officers and witnesses.’” State v. Woodruff, 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 206 (Mar. 6, 2024).*
Posted inAutomobile exception, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on NJ: Prior knowledge def probably had drugs in car didn’t require SW, and automobile exception still applied
Plaintiff’s strip search in jail to photograph his tattoos was reasonable. Turn v. Leslie, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39329 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2024), adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38391 ( E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2024).
Plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim that overcame qualified immunity that the officer knowingly misrepresented attempts to contact plaintiff about a juvenile court hearing involving her children that misled the court. Rieman v. Vazquez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5252 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2024).*
A state judge violated judicial ethics when he showed up to represent his brother-in-law in a hospital room when he was about to be interrogated, and then invoked his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. People v. Kiesnowski, 2024 CO 12 (Mar. 4, 2024).*
Posted inQualified immunity, Strip search|Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Jail strip search to document tattoos was reasonable
Detox civil detention justified inventory search of the person the same as jailing an alleged offender. State v. Williams, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 131 (Mar. 5, 2024).
Some of the information in the affidavit didn’t provide a time frame, but other parts did, and that established probable cause. But the affidavit is not bare bones. “Thus, even if probable cause is lacking here, the officer’s reliance on the search warrant was objectively reasonable.” United States v. Swartz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38344 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2024).*
The officer’s threat to arrest everyone in the room was not baseless because he could have. Defendant’s consent then was not coerced. Besides, a search incident would have been proper. State v. Bennett, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 163 (Mar. 5, 2024).*
Faint smell of marijuana and marijuana residue on floor of car was reasonable suspicion for continuing the stop. State v. George, 2024 N.C. App. LEXIS 180 (Mar. 5, 2024).*
“Because we recognize several purposes served by the exclusionary rule, including deterring unlawful government conduct generally, and we conclude that applying the exclusionary rule here serves these remedial goals, we decline to extend the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule under the Minnesota Constitution to the present facts. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the district court’s order dismissing the charges against Malecha.” Arizona v. Evans is rejected under the state constitution. State v. Malecha, 2024 Minn. LEXIS 126 (Mar. 6, 2024):
Wall Street Journal: U.S. Spy Agencies Know Our Secrets. They Bought Them. by Byron Tau (“Whatever the U.S. can do with commercial data, foreign governments can do too. Last week, President Biden signed an executive order to prevent certain adversary countries, especially China and Russia, from buying bulk commercial data sets about Americans, including genetic information and personal movement information. But the order didn’t address the issue of how the U.S. government itself uses commercial data to get around constitutional protections for civil liberties. That issue is now before Congress as lawmakers consider reauthorizing a key surveillance law, prompting a debate over whether it’s appropriate for government and corporate power to become so intertwined.”)
Drug dog’s twice entering defendant’s car without probable cause was a common law trespass under Jones and Jardines, and the police unlawfully gained information from that. The court rejects the “instinct exception” for the dog on the facts here, even if the state would recognize it. State v. Campbell, 2024 Wisc. App. LEXIS 185 (Mar. 5, 2024):
Posted inDog sniff, Scope of search|Comments Off on WI: Drug dog’s entering car was trespass, and “instinct exception,” even if it could be recognized, doesn’t apply
Defendant had elective surgery four years after a shooting to remove the bullet. The police were entitled to a search warrant for the bullet from the hospital because it was evidence of a crime. Trial court’s denial of the warrant is reversed. State v. Ross, 2024 N.J. LEXIS 164 (Mar. 5, 2024).
Before defendant’s arrest in a murder case, defense counsel met with the investigator and made statements attributable to defendant and turned over evidence all in violation of attorney-client privilege all without defendant’s knowledge or permission. With new counsel, defendant successfully moved to suppress both the statements and defendant as the source of the evidence, and the state appealed. The physical evidence is admissible at trial, but the state cannot let any witness tell the jury that defense counsel was the source of the evidence. In the warrant for cell phone information, the warrant didn’t specify which phone was attributable to which of the three people involved (defendant, victim, witness), it was reasonable to infer it was all three and was particular enough. Nexus was also shown. State v. Ledbetter, 2024 Ga. LEXIS 58 (Mar. 5, 2024).*
A foreign national arrested in international waters after a drug raid on a ship has no Fourth Amendment claim. United States v. Marquez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5220 (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2024).*
The residential building searched had two front doors but one address. This suggested that it might be two residences, but police investigating couldn’t find any indication that it was two, not one. In any event, the warrant was based on probable cause, and the only remedy, if any, would be partial suppression. But still: “This case is more like Woodbury, where the discovery on entry that the residence contained more than one dwelling unit did not negate or undermine the warrant’s provided probable cause for the search of the entire property. Further, as in Woodbury, the officers’ decision in the instant case to continue their search despite the internal subdivision of the residence into two units was, as in Garrison, ‘objectively understandable and reasonable.’ Woodbury, 485 F. App’x at 60.” United States v. Osley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37791 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2024).
“The totality of the circumstances consisted of the following facts when Detective Jaynes stopped Paul: (1) Detective Jaynes observed Paul in the vicinity of the convenience store shortly after the robbery occurred; (2) Paul had a ‘bulge in his right front pant pocket’ that could have been a ‘knife or possibly money that was collected from the robbery’; and (3) the photographs Detective Jaynes received showed that some of Paul’s clothing bore similarities to those worn by the actual robber. Taken together, these circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion that Paul committed the robbery.” United States v. Paul, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5087 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024).*
Posted inOverbreadth, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: The residence had two front doors but could not be definitively determined to be two residences before search; search still valid when it was two
Defendant was originally prosecuted in Oklahoma state court for murder. After McGirt v. Oklahoma, he moved to set aside the Oklahoma conviction as being obtained without jurisdiction. In federal court, he moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the state as lacking jurisdiction. The good faith exception applies. The state officials were acting on the understanding of the law at the time. United States v. Pemberton, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5219 (10th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024).
Defense counsel’s choice of how to challenge the search warrant affidavit was not ineffective assistance of counsel. “In light of all of the evidence, challenging the search warrant issued on the basis of the statements made by Shelly N. was not a reasonable course of action.” United States v. Ballard, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37366 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2024).*
Senator Menendez’s case: ESI and two home warrants not suppressed on a Franks challenge. “[T]he omissions are neither material nor critical. Finally, the omission of inculpatory information, such as certain of the alleged omissions discussed above, cannot be evidence of intent to mislead.” United States v. Menendez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37387 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2024).*
Defendant’s cell phone is in the possession of the government but it can’t search it because they don’t have the pass code. Defendant’s request for discovery of the phone under Rule 16 is denied because the contents of the phone are not in the possession of the government. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36922 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2024).
In this drug search warrant, firearms were mentioned in the affidavit but not the warrant itself. During the search, firearms were found, and they were properly seized at least as plain view. State v. Brown, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 138 (Mar. 1, 2024).
“[H]e had probable cause to stop that car for civil violations or misdemeanor traffic infractions including vehicle registration, speeding and crossing the center line. He also had reasonable suspicion to believe the car was stolen based on the fake license tag and the ‘wrap’ that concealed the car’s original paint color. Either way, the officer’s decision to stop the car was proper.” United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36634 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2024).*
The Google email search warrant was sufficiently particular to narrow the search to documents pertaining to a particular land transaction. The search warrant for defendant’s Apple phone and accounts, however, was insufficiently particular and is suppressed. The affidavit attempted to be more particular, but it did not accompany the warrant on execution. United States v. Pilling, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36830 (D. Idaho Mar. 2, 2024).
This cell phone was with probable cause and was particular. “Here, the warrant affidavits clearly established probable cause to conclude that Sinisterra was involved in all three shootings described therein. He was implicated by two individuals who corroborated each other and were in turn corroborated by other evidence. The affidavits further averred that both Sinisterra and W1 were members of 960, and that they communicated with each other via text message, Facebook messenger, and Facetime. Finally, Sinisterra used his cell phone to contact W1, arguably confessing, minutes after a shooting in which he was implicated by W1.” United States v. Sinisterra, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36057 (D. Conn. Mar. 1, 2024).*
Posted inCell phones, E-mail, Particularity|Comments Off on D.Idaho: Cellphone warrant was not sufficiently particular and is suppressed; Gmail account not suppressed
Under existing precedent, the smell of suspected marijuana couldn’t be distinguished between hemp and CBD, and that was still probable cause for search of the car. Coverstone v. State, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 90 (Mar. 4, 2024).
“First, Officer Murphy did not improperly prolong the detention by ordering Nguyen to exit the car. … Second, the officers did not improperly prolong the stop by frisking either Nguyen or Tran. … The brief frisks were justified by the odor of burned marijuana, the suspected vehicle theft, Nguyen’s initial refusal to get out of the car, the knife in Nguyen’s pocket, and reason to believe Nguyen and Tran were engaged in a ‘common enterprise.’ … Third, Officer Elhami did not improperly prolong the detention by briefly asking Tran whether he was ‘on probation or anything.’ … Fourth, Officer Elhami did not improperly prolong the detention by ordering Tran to exit the car. … Fifth, the officers did not improperly prolong the detention by asking for Tran’s identification and searching the car because the officers had at least formed reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct prior to their investigative steps. ‘Although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause.’ … And Nguyen consented to the vehicle search.” United States v. Tran, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934 (9th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024).*
Nexus to defendant’s house was shown by two controlled buys with others who traveled back to his house afterward. United States v. Espinoza, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5147 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024).
“The warrant for appellant’s medical records was sufficiently particular because it authorized a search for appellant’s medical and ambulance records and was limited to the date of the accident and to the hospital at which appellant was treated. Because the warrant restricted the contents, time, and location of the records sought, we conclude that the district court did not err by refusing to suppress the medical records obtained through the warrant.” Also, the doctor-patient privilege doesn’t apply to paramedics. State v. Smeby, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 105 (Mar. 4, 2024).*
Police had reasonable suspicion for the stop of defendant’s Jeep. Police had an automatic weapon shots fired call, and they drove to the scene seeing a Jeep with a shot-out back window. The officer made a U turn and the Jeep fled. That was enough. United States v. Hart, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35781 (D. Minn. Mar. 1, 2024).*
Being the target of a search doesn’t automatically establish standing. There were four packages here sent under assumed names to assumed names. The anticipatory warrant was based on probable cause. United States v. Taylor, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36749 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2024).
The CS here provided information for a search warrant but then ghosted the officers. The fact a CS fails to further continue to cooperate is not Franks material. Jordan v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35593 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2024).*
Defendant was in an Uber stopped on I-90 at 4 am in the rain because the windows were tinted too dark. There was also reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking based on baggage at the airport put in the Uber by a confederate wearing a ski mask, defendant not handling any bags, as well as a drug history. United States v. Sanders, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35516 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 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.
