Fifteen months to review a cell phone search “was accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. Although a review period of fifteen months is ‘certainly not brief,’ it was not unreasonably long considering ‘the challenges of searching ESI from electronic devices’ and the Government’s multiple attempts to extract the data in a reviewable format. United States v. Daskal, 676 F. Supp. 3d 153, 178-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (finding that a review period of 23 months was reasonable). Moreover, courts in this Circuit regularly find that similarly lengthy review periods are reasonable. …” United States v. Fofanah, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74575 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2025).
Smell of marijuana from defendant’s car was probable cause for an automobile exception search. United States v. Warfield, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73725 (W.D. La. Apr. 1, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72831 (W.D. La. Apr. 16, 2025).*
No Franks hearing: “This time, though, Hitchcock misreads the affidavit. It did not purport to state that [Officer] Jousma had seen the drugs. It stated only that Jousma ‘observed Hitchcock do what appeared to be a hand to hand drug transaction.’” Probable cause was shown. United States v. Hitchcock, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9252 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025).*
Defendant objects to the search warrant materials being unsealed on the docket. He has not overcome the common law presumption of open access. The First Amendment right of public access is even broader. These papers are unsealed. United States v. Harding, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72082 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2025).
Plaintiff was a NY prison inmate subjected to a strip and/or body cavity search, but the defense motion for partial summary judgment only creates a fact dispute. Denied. Rosa v. Hoke, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73326 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2025).*
“Per Franks, the Government’s search warrant affidavit disclosed CC-1’s criminality from top to bottom. The affidavit disclosed that CC-1 possessed a firearm during a pre-buy search; that CC-1 later engaged Taylor in an unsanctioned drug transaction that led to a shootout in the Walmart parking lot’ and that CC-1 had his own extensive criminal history. Indeed, the affidavit stated that CC-1 provided statements to law enforcement ‘with the hope of receiving potential consideration on CC-1’s criminal charges.’ … All of this information was disclosed to the magistrate for purposes of assessing reliability and probable cause, thereby obviating any grounds for a Franks motion.” United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73403 (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2025).*
Because the affidavit for search warrant differs so much from the ultimate crime defendants were charged with, defendant at least gets a Franks hearing. There’s some suggestion of materiality, but that’s not decided yet. United States v. Peraire-Bueno, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73550 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2025).
“Review of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred under Stone because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim before trial, and he does not show that ineffective assistance of counsel or a Brady violation affected his full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim.” Hahn v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73627 (D.N.M. Apr. 17, 2025).*
Without an affidavit of standing, the motion to suppress and for discovery of the warrant papers is denied. United States v. Green, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73675 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2025).*
“Here, even if we omit [Officer] Kulisek’s alleged false statements, ‘there remain[s] enough uncontested, reliable evidence to support probable cause as a matter of law.’ … Barnett’s own admissions and the remaining undisputed facts were sufficient for a reasonable person to believe that Barnett committed the crime of theft of lost or mislaid property.” Barnett v. City of Chi., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9184 (7th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).*
The AG’s civil investigative demand to Planned Parenthood wasn’t unreasonable as a subpoena. “To comply with the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement, a CID, which is an administrative subpoena, must (1) comply with the statute authorizing it, (2) seek information that is relevant to the administrative inquiry, and (3) not be too indefinite or too broad. Charter Commc’ns, 461 S.W.3d at 859.” This meets those requirements. Private information is not sought. Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State ex rel. Bailey, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 238 (Apr. 15, 2025).
“At least four sets of facts support the reasonableness of the suspicion that the two men found in the backyard were two participants in the robbery.” Therefore, the encounter was reasonable. Parker v. United States, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 76 (Apr. 17, 2025).*
The officer opened defendant’s car door to seize a glass pipe. It was not an unreasonable trespass under Jones and Class. United States v. Rogers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73414 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 17, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s decedent was in a shopping mall lawfully carrying a gun. When a shooting occurred, he drew his weapon and advanced to provide assistance. An officer on patrol in the mall saw him with the gun moving toward a man who may have been shot, and the officer shot and killed him. The use of force under the circumstances was not unreasonable. The whole thing took five seconds. Pipkins v. City of Hoover, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9162 (11th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025)*:
Plaintiff was ticketed by officers of the Kirkland PD, one for having a fictitious license plate, and he sued in federal court claiming Fourth Amendment and right to travel violations and the city had no jurisdiction over him. Younger bars the action. Harris v. City of Kirtland, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9141 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).
The alleged civil Franks violation was neither a misrepresentation nor material. Jackson v. Rosen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72934 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2025).*
“A defendant who neither sends nor is the listed recipient of a parcel generally does not have a subjective expectation of privacy in its contents. … On the face of the parcels, someone other than McCurdy sent them and someone other than McCurdy was to receive them. Without more, the facts do not present a reasonable expectation of privacy in the parcels sufficient to bring the Fourth Amendment challenge McCurdy now asserts.” United States v. McCurdy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73064 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2025).*
While Rhode Island had decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, the fact it’s still a federal crime permitted officers to prolong the stop. United States v. Pavao, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9156 (1st Cir. Apr. 17, 2025).
2255 petitioner’s Franks claim is essentially a rehash of the same claim rejected on direct appeal, so no CoA. United States v. McKinney, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9109 (10th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s false arrest case was properly dismissed against the officer. The body cam video shows the probable cause. Logan v. Israel, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9150 (11th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025).*
This 2254 Franks claim fails: “Even if the search warrant affidavit falsely stated that the downloads occurred through April 28, 2014, instead of February 5, 2014, the remaining evidence demonstrated a reasonable probability that Dickie possessed child pornography on his computer on July 8, 2014, when the detective applied for the warrant.” Dickie v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72892 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Probable cause|Comments Off on CA1: Because it’s still a federal crime, state decrim of MJ didn’t defeat PC
There is no Fourth Amendment claim for officers running the serial number of a gun after it was lawfully encountered, so no ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Hylton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71338 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2025).
On the surface of the complaint, plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the warrantless search of their business office. Bustillo v. City of Miami, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72406 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2025).*
Prison guard gawking during strip search wasn’t a Fourth Amendment claim. Neither is a cross-gender strip search. Uhuru v. Shen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72663 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025).*
The district court’s credibility determination in the arrest warrant that defendant was the person from whom the controlled buy was made is affirmed. United States v. Steel, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9104 (3d Cir. Apr. 17, 2025).*
WaPo: How a defunct gang registry helped deliver Kilmar Abrego García to a Salvadoran prison by Katie Mettler, María Luisa Paúl, Jasmine Hilton and Lateshia Beachum (“Federal officials have launched a full-throated effort to label Abrego García a gang member and ‘a terrorist,’ an argument based on a gang survey that was decommissioned amid questions over racial profiling.”). A libel?
Defendant’s NYC apartment was the subject of a search warrant for child pornography. Once inside, he was told repeatedly that he was not under arrest and was free to leave. He continued talking, and he wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes. United States v. Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72753 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2025)*:
Correctional officers found 20 cell phones in defendant’s cell. He has no standing in his cell. As to the cell phone searches, even if he had standing, the warrants were not overbroad. United States v. Nasir, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72018 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2025).
In a traffic stop on a quiet street albeit in a high crime area, defendant and his passenger getting out of their truck before the police car lights were even on was concerning enough to the officer to ask about weapons. A protective weapons search was justified. United States v. Antley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72249 (D.R.I. Apr. 16, 2025).*
“Probable cause only requires a ‘fair probability’ that police would find evidence of criminal conduct in executing the warrant; it does not require conclusive evidence that Ms. Freeman was engaged in criminal conduct. … A commonsense analysis of the Affidavit supports the conclusion that there was at least a fair probability Ms. Freeman was transporting contraband.” In addition, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Freeman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72350 (D. Minn. Mar. 19, 2025).*
The City of Canton, Ohio has safety and sanitary standards for rental property that are reasonable and can be enforced by a Camara search warrant on administrative probable cause. Dep’t of Dev. Servs. for the City of N. Canton Ohio v. CF Homes LLC, 2025-Ohio-1342, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 1289 (5th Dist. Apr. 15, 2025).
Defendant refused the officer’s directive to get out of the car, and he was forcibly removed. This reasonably extended the stop. People v. Coates, 2025 IL App (4th) 231312, 2025 Ill. App. LEXIS 747 (Apr. 15, 2025).*
New York reiterates it’s flight + reasonable suspicion for pursuit. People v. Cleveland, 2025 NY Slip Op 02144, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 473 (Apr. 15, 2025).*
Defendant was lawfully ordered from his car, and the baggie sticking out of his pocket was in plain view. Goodson v. State, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 140 (Apr. 15, 2025).*
Suppose persons accused with high sentencing exposure opt for a trial because they fear being deported to CECOT even if they are natural born citizens? I had such a call Friday.
Defendant was in pretrial detention arrested three days earlier in a murder-for-hire scheme. Jailors searched his cell, apparently as a part of the original criminal investigation, looking for cell phone which he attempted to destroy. He moved to suppress. “The Court denies McBean’s motion. Under Hudson and its progeny, McBean lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his MDC cell, barring him from challenging the search of his cell under the Fourth Amendment. That is so even assuming that, under this line of authority, McBean retained a limited privacy interest with respect to searches undertaken solely for law enforcement investigative purposes that did not implicate prison security interests, because that interest of his was not implicated here. The Court therefore denies his motion to suppress.” United States v. McBean, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71775 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2025).
Officers searching for a person in a house could look between the mattress and box springs for people because that’s a fairly common hiding place. A gun found was in plain view. Morris v. Commonwealth, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 221 (Apr. 15, 2025) (unpublished).*
The state search warrant allegedly was issued without probable cause, but the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Grant, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71732 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2025).*
Petitioner’s search claim doesn’t support a successor habeas. In re Mitchell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8919 (5th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025).*
An appellate court can affirm denial of suppression on any ground supported by the record. And, when the district court finds multiple independent grounds to deny suppression, the appellant has to rebut all of them. Here, the district court found (1) a lack of standing, (2) the automobile exception justified the search, (3) then an inventory would have occurred, and (4) inevitable discovery applied. All of them are supported by the record. United States v. Eagan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8966 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).
Plaintiffs were arrested for sexual assault. One had his case dismissed before trial, and the other was acquitted. There was probable cause to proceed against them. “To be sure, the TCSO defendants’ failure to investigate may not have been ‘topnotch policing.’ Harte v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Cnty. of Johnson, 864 F.3d 1154, 1178 (10th Cir. 2017) (Phillips, J., writing separately). But that does not mean it violated the Fourth Amendment. Once the TCSO defendants had sufficient probable cause, they had no obligation to ‘exhaust every possible lead, interview all potential witnesses, [or] accumulate overwhelming corroborative evidence.’ Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1142 (quoting Beard, 24 F.3d at 116). [¶] Because Rosen has failed to identify any evidence indicating that the TCSO defendants lacked probable cause or acted recklessly when investigating and arresting him, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on both of his Fourth Amendment claims.” Crothers v. Carr, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8978 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).*
“Marcure also asserts that an officer coerced his consent by promising him that no charges would be filed, but even if a statement like this can be coercive, the complaint states that the promise occurred ‘[a]fter the search was finished.’ The promise could not have affected his decision to consent. No other allegations could support a reasonable inference that his consent was coerced; thus, he does not state a claim of unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.” Marcure v. Lynn, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8993 (7th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).
“In his brief on appeal, Martin does not challenge the fact that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe there was a window tint violation, and also had at least reasonable suspicion to believe that Martin was transporting illegal drugs. … [¶] We hold that the officer permissibly stopped Martin’s car on the basis of his reasonable suspicion of a window tint violation, and permissibly asked routine questions related thereto for more than 5 minutes during which time he had relocated Martin out of the car and into a location less risky to the safety of the officer. Thereafter—after the expiration of 5 minutes and 50 seconds—the officer permissibly extended the duration of the stop to investigate his reasonable suspicion that Martin was transporting illegal drugs.” United States v. Martin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9046 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025).*
Posted inConsent, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA7: Post search statement of promise for consent didn’t affect consent to search
The search of defendant’s car was based on the alleged federal crime of possession of a small amount of marijuana, and a gun was found, and he was a felon in possession. State officers can arrest for violations of federal law. United States v. Whitlow, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9023 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025):
CW34 West Palm Beach: U.S. citizen detained in Florida under new immigration law, released after 48 hours by Grace Bellinghausen (“A 20-year-old U.S. citizen was unlawfully detained by ICE for two days following a traffic stop near the Florida border. [¶] According to CBS12 partners at the Sun Sentinel, Juan Carlos Lopez Gomez was stopped by Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) on Wednesday just after passing the Georgia border. [¶] A 20-year-old U.S. citizen was unlawfully detained by ICE for two days following a traffic stop near the Florida border. [¶] Spokesperson with the Florida Immigrant Coalition, Thomas Kennedy, told the Sun Sentinel that Lopez Gomez and other passengers in the car were arrested due to a new Florida law that makes it illegal for undocumented immigrants to enter the state.”)
Posted inImmigration arrests, Immigration checkpoints|Comments Off on CW34 West Palm Beach: U.S. citizen detained in Florida under new immigration law, released after 48 hours
Plaintiff’s arrest without probable cause for driving under the influence survived summary judgment and the qualified immunity defense. Looking at the video, there is nothing that supports probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. The defendant officers and city used a “divide and conquer” approach to show there was a basis for arrest, contrary to Wesby. Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9095 (8th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025):
by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"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]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!” ---Pepé Le Pew
"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)
