Plaintiff inmate claims to have an allergy. The prison wanted to draw blood to confirm. “Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that the Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they drew and tested his blood for an allergy of which he complained.” Middlebrook v. Wellman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213864 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff inmate’s claims his restraints when he moves in the prison are unreasonable. This doesn’t state a claim. Petion v. Chevalier, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213927 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2023).*
Plaintiff’s placement in RHU didn’t deprive him of any Fourth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Gorrio v. Terra, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215323 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2023).*
Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren’t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214141 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213234 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).
Defendant failed to meet his burden of pleading and proof on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to move to suppress the search of a bar surveillance recording device. The police had it voluntarily from the bar owner along with the password to get into it. A search warrant was obtained for it that wasn’t promptly executed. There’s no requirement under state law that the state’s failure to search it promptly leads to suppression. [Standing to challenge the search isn’t even mentioned.] Mohr v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Dec. 1, 2023).*
Without a transcript of the suppression hearing for appeal, there’s nothing to rule on. Denial of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Crain, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4167 (5th Dist. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant was on GPS electronic monitoring while on probation. The search of his EM device to prove he was involved in a robbery was not unreasonable. Moreover, even if the probation department’s regulations were somehow violated, the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Young v. United States, 2023 D.C. App. LEXIS 325 (Nov. 30, 2023).
The defendant officer had qualified immunity for killing plaintiff’s pitbull that had attacked another dog and children and was coming at the officer. Eady v. Bryant, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213237 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).*
Defendant’s cell phone was searched at JFK two separate times based on reasonable suspicion that there was information on it of bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. It was also done in good faith. United States v. Alisigwe, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213415 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2023).*
The stop was justified because the taillights were “smoked out” and one couldn’t adequately see them. During the stop, the officer smelled marijuana, but he didn’t act on that alone. He asked questions, saw the medical marijuana card, but he also saw enough marijuana packaging that strongly suggested defendant was not just a lawful user. “Officer Munoz had probable cause to search Moore’s car because he had diligently investigated to confirm or dispel his suspicions that Moore possessed more than the allowable amount of marijuana and was engaged in sales of the drug.” United States v. Moore, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212729 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2023).
Even if defendant’s cell phone was illegally searched to get its serial number (compare Arizona v. Hicks), three witnesses provided information that there was child pornography on the cell phone and any motion to suppress would have be denied. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making that serial number challenge. United States v. Soto, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211931 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2023).*
Officers had probable cause defendant was hauling bulk cash when he was stopped, and that permitted a search of the whole vehicle. United States v. Zeng, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212044 (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2023).*
Just because Greyhound cooperates with the DEA in Albuquerque doesn’t mean it can be sued there under the Fourth Amendment. Fernandez v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211564 (D.N.M. Nov. 28, 2023).
Homeless in Los Angeles likely had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their stuff where they were staying, but the city didn’t destroy it–they moved it and told them where to go to retrieve. Therefore, no Fourth Amendment violation. People of City of L.A. Who Are Un-Housed v. Garcetti, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211358 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2023).
A typo on the date in the body of affidavit for warrant was off a day, and it wasn’t material. United States v. Hampton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211819 (D. Alaska Nov. 29, 2023).*
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense that wasn’t disputed, and the officer ran his ID coming up with an outstanding warrant for nonpayment of a fine. The search incident to the arrest on the outstanding warrant was valid, and the officer relied in good faith on the warrant despite defendant’s contention that it converted the fine only offense into custody. State v. Grayson, 2023-Ohio-4275, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4127 (1st Dist. Nov. 29, 2023).*
An FBI 302 mentioned a search warrant, and all of this in context did not amount to a Brady violation. Reyes v. State, 2023 Conn. App. LEXIS 272 (Nov. 28, 2023).
“We conclude, based on the record, that the district court erred in dismissing the Appellees’ claim of excessive force. Having reviewed the record, particularly the videotape of the incident, we conclude that the oﬃcers initial use of force to secure Lewis against the window was reasonable under the circumstances. However, we disagree with the district court regarding the continued use of force by the oﬃcers.” Lewis v. City of Marietta, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31423 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2023).*
The alleged false statement in the search warrant application was negligent at worst and not even material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Woods, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210862 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Stone deals with the opportunity to seek suppression in state court, not whether it could succeed. Hawthorne v. Vannoy, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211365 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210051 (E.D. La. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Federal court has no Rule 41(g) jurisdiction over seized and held property by state officials never transferred to federal custody. United States v. Gonzalez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210395 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023).
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails: “In conclusion, the Court notes that there was sufficient evidence to support probable cause including, inter alia, 1) matching descriptions of the robber and his attire in surveillance videos and eyewitness accounts of the robbery, 2) matching descriptions of the SUVs from the surveillance videos, 3) statements from hotel management tying defendant to the AC Hotel, and 4) evidence from the Station Landing surveillance video on December 12 at 7:35 p.m. showing a white male with a nearly identical description to the robber get into a large white SUV several minutes prior to the robbery. [¶] Defendant’s efforts to isolate individual pieces of evidence and suggest that each in itself is insufficient to establish probable cause runs contrary to the totality of the circumstances inquiry. The motion to suppress will be denied.” United States v. Schurko, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210145 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2023).*
A civil Franks violation is clearly established law for qualified immunity. Bledsoe v. Willis, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31326 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Defendant’s argument failed that a license plate reader hit couldn’t provide a basis for a stop when he went on a four county highspeed chase when the police tried to stop him. Landers v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8817 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Nov. 27, 2023).
“Indeed, ‘[b]ecause [a] malicious prosecution claim is based on the Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, our inquiry is not limited to the validity of the warrant application.’ [Humbert, 866 F.3d at 559]. Rather, a plaintiff must show ‘that the legal process instituted against him was without probable cause.’ Id.; see also id. at 559-60 (examining evidence extrinsic to warrant application to determine if officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff). Thus, the district court was not limited to considering facts contained in the warrant application when conducting its probable cause analysis.” Sullivan v. Smilijanich, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31270 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge based on the officer allegedly not knowing what he looked like when the officer had seen him a couple of days before wasn’t a false statement. United States v. Schurko, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210145 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2023).*
An extraterritorial stop by an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations, here especially because of public safety concerns. City of Fairview Park v. Bowman, 2023-Ohio-4210, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4047 (8th Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).
Plaintiff here made a joke Twitter post on March 20, 2020 that the local sheriff had issued an order to shoot Covid infected people “on sight.” They arrested him for a terroristic threat, but the case was later dismissed. A panel of the Fifth Circuit held it was not a threat and was protected speech. Thus, his arrest violated the First Amendment because there was no probable cause, and thus no qualified immunity. Bailey v. Iles, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31013 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (on rehearing).* [This is a significant free speech case; not much of a search and seizure case.]
Defendant’s appellate counsel didn’t raise a suppression issue he wanted raised. There is no prejudice because he couldn’t have won on that issue even if presented. Defendant shot his wife and then called 911. A search warrant was prepared with a typo that was acknowledged. Settled law showed he would never have prevailed. Therefore, no IAC. Turner v. State, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 473 (Nov. 22, 2023).*
New Yorker: Does A.I. Lead Police to Ignore Contradictory Evidence? by Eyal Press (“Too often, a facial-recognition search represents virtually the entirety of a police investigation.” Product manufacturers tout its 100% accuracy, but it is anything but. False arrests abound.)
“The knock and talk exception has two limitations: (1) it is geographically limited to the front door or a ‘minor departure’ from it. … And (2) it no longer applies if an officer’s behavior ‘objectively reveals a purpose to conduct a search.’ … The Court finds that officers did not exceed the scope of the knock and talk exception for two reasons. [¶] First, investigators did not exceed the geographic limit of the knock and talk exception. … [¶] Second, even though Investigator Williams looked behind him through the window of Defendant’s truck to see the open container and rifle round, this behavior was not, objectively, for the purpose to conduct a search. Instead, Investigator Williams remained in the geographic area of the knock and talk and turned around to look behind him for officer safety purposes, as he testified and as evidenced by his remark recorded on the body camera footage ‘I’m just making sure nobody is behind me brother,’ when he turned around to look at Defendant’s truck.” United States v. Corbett, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209542 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2023).
“Under the circumstances here, where Defendant was observed selling narcotics in his car on several occasions, the most recent of which was less than 72 hours before the warrant affidavit, there is probable cause to believe that evidence of drug trafficking will be found in that automobile. That 72 hours passed between the last drug sale and securing the warrant does not eviscerate probable cause.” The good faith exception carries nexus [even though there clearly is]. United States v. Odom, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209236 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 22, 2023).*
One can’t remove a state criminal case to federal court via habeas to decide his search warrant motions. Washington v. 5th Dist. Court of Texas, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209404 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2023), adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208401 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2023).
Odor of marijuana from a car and seeing loose marijuana on a lottery ticket during a valid stop is probable cause. State v. Payne, 2023-Ohio-4198 (1st Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).*
Defendant claims letters were seized from his and his co-defendant’s jail cells. His search wasn’t used against him, and he doesn’t have standing on the other. United States v. Dahda, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209222 (D. Kan. Nov. 22, 2023).*
In civil case for evidence production brought in San Francisco to aid litigation in Ontario, Canada. the court holds that account passwords are protected by the Stored Communications Act and there was no consent to disclosure. In re Path Network, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209488 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2023). [I spent a half hour reading this case despite it not being a Fourth Amendment case. It may be a sleeper on this issue.] See techdirt: California Court: Passwords Are Communications, Protected By The Stored Communications Act by Tim Cushing.
An apartment building’s management conducted sprinkler system checks and found drugs, paraphernalia, and cash which it related to the police. The affidavit for warrant was based on probable cause from that view. United States v. Howard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208964 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2023).*
Defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer saw a single ammunition cartridge in plain view, and that justified a search of the vehicle. State v. Gibbs, 2023-Ohio-4223 (9th Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).*
NYPD officers stopped defendant riding a bike in Queens. They asked him whether he was armed, and he admitted he was, so he was frisked and arrested. The stop lacked any reasonable suspicion, and the gun should have been suppressed. People v. Rodriguez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05972, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1889 (Nov. 21, 2023).
Officers set up a traffic safety roadblock on a bridge from Manhattan to the Bronx where every third car was stopped. Intoxicated drivers wasn’t the focus, but they would make an arrest if they found one. When defendant’s car stopped, he rolled down the window to talk to the officer and the smell of burnt marijuana came out, so that led to a vehicle search. First, the state proved justification for the roadblock. Second, legalization of marijuana doesn’t apply retroactively (this was in 2018, and the law changed March 31, 2021). People v. Pastrana, 2023 NY Slip Op 05966, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1894 (Nov. 21, 2023).*
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s car that he used for a bank robbery and then left it elsewhere. United States v. Newton, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31010 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).*
“Without any further attempts to subdue Sligh without the use of a dog bite, and without providing Sligh any warning that she may be subjected to a dog bite if she did not comply, Sutton sicced a dog on a woman who (1) was not suspected of any crime; (2) did not pose an immediate safety threat to officers or others; and (3) was in need of emergency medical intervention due to self-harm. Furthermore, Sligh–surrounded by a fence and thick foliage–was not attempting to flee the officers. Employing a dog bite under these circumstances arguably constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of Sligh’s Fourth Amendment rights.” Sligh v. City of Conroe, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31011 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress the cell phone search because it was reasonable under the law at the time it happened. The state court’s original determination that the cell phone search was proper was actually an unreasonable application of later Supreme Court precedent. The search was valid incident to arrest even though Riley wasn’t decided until three months later based on state precedent (applying California law at the time). It was also unreasonable for the state to apply inventory to a cell phone search. Therefore, the search would have been found valid, and the motion to suppress denied, and it’s not ineffective assistance of counsel to file a motion to suppress that would lose. Hudspath v. Garrett, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208362 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2023).* [I admit this opinion confused me. Riley came along while the case was pending. Still, the good faith exception seemingly cures all ills.]