NBC: Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes

NBC: Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes by Gordon Lubold, Courtney Kube and Dan De Luce (“The lawyer at U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the operations against alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela, disagreed that the strikes are legal and was overruled, according to six sources.”)

Posted in Excessive force, Foreign searches | Comments Off on NBC: Top military lawyer raised legal concerns about boat strikes

CA1: Lobstering is a closely-regulated industry

Lobstering is a closely regulated industry, and GPS tracking of lobster boats by the State of Maine is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Thompson v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30135 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2025) (appellant first conceded that it was a closely regulated industry, and then tried to back out of it, but to no avail):

Continue reading
Posted in Administrative search, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on CA1: Lobstering is a closely-regulated industry

S.D.Fla.: Murder for hire scheme was exigency for entry; SW issued a day late not automatically stale

A murder for hire scheme was exigency for a warrantless search. Here, the officers thought the firearm would be moved imminently on December 31, 2024, but the warrant wasn’t signed until after midnight January 1, 2025. It wasn’t automatically stale, and there was exigency. United States v. Fultz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225617 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2025).

Ordering defendant out of his car during a nighttime stop was not unreasonable nor unrelated to the purpose of the stop. United States v. Nicely, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226834 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2025).*

Defendant’s vehicle could have been searched on the side of the road. Instead, officers waited 18 hours to get a search warrant for it to search for drugs they saw in it. The delay was not unreasonable. United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226275 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 18, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for what appears now [to this author] to be speculative reasons. MacVicar v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226254 (D. Me. Nov. 18, 2025).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness, Staleness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Murder for hire scheme was exigency for entry; SW issued a day late not automatically stale

AR: Warrantless entry under 12-year-old drug abatement search order never before challenged was in good faith, despite 4A violation

There was a drug abatement order from 2011 for an apartment area in Jonesboro, Arkansas. A sign warned of warrantless residential searches. The JPD street crimes unit saw several men standing outside defendant’s apartment. Marijuana could be smelled, and they searched defendant finding two Oxys. Two bottles of cough syrup and a blunt were seen by his residence door. They entered as well. Despite the entry violating the Fourth Amendment, the 12 years of the abatement order plus the call to the city attorney for guidance made the good faith exception apply. Thompson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 558 (Nov. 19, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on AR: Warrantless entry under 12-year-old drug abatement search order never before challenged was in good faith, despite 4A violation

LA: Communal parking area at a “trailer park” was not curtilage

Defendant’s car in a “trailer park” communal parking area near his place was not on his “curtilage.” The court of appeals erred in finding it was curtilage. State v. Charles, 2025 La. LEXIS 1624 (Nov. 19, 2025).

“Here, the renewed warrant was issued after a controlled buy involving the target cellphone. In his affidavit, Beal described that transaction in detail, linked it to Hill’s cellphone, summarized the progress of the investigation, and referenced Hill’s prior federal prosecution and state arrests. Taken together, this information established a fair probability that GPS data from the phone would yield evidence of drug trafficking and demonstrated a clear nexus between Hill’s criminal activity and his cellphone. Far from boilerplate, the affidavit offered ‘powerful corroborative evidence for purposes of determining probable cause.’ …” United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30244 (2d Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

Shooting plaintiff in the eye with a pepper ball gun to disperse and not apprehend was not clearly established to be excessive force. Keup v. Sarpy Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30228 (8th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

Posted in Curtilage, Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on LA: Communal parking area at a “trailer park” was not curtilage

CA5: Overnight guest’s stuff subject to search under warrant for premises

Defendant was an overnight guest at the place searched, and the officers executing a warrant were authorized to search her stuff, too. United States v. Inyang, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30148 (5th Cir. Nov. 18, 2025).

Undercover officer’s recording in defendant’s house didn’t violate Fourth Amendment. United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226857 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2025).*

Defendant’s flight justified his stop. State v. Doyle, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 2227 (La. App. 2 Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

Defendant fails in his Franks challenge in making the substantial preliminary showing of falsity. And even if it was, it wasn’t material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Mack, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30243 (2d Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA5: Overnight guest’s stuff subject to search under warrant for premises

E.D.Mich.: Seeing handgun reasonably led to handcuffing to see if def had permit on him

Officers suspected defendant was carrying a weapon, and they saw it as they approached. Under state law, he had to have the permit on him. “So, were the officers’ following actions (handcuffing Pettes and putting him in the squad car) ‘reasonably related’ to investigating whether Pettes was lawfully carrying a concealed weapon? Undoubtedly. These precautions enabled officers to investigate whether Pettes had a CPL in a safe and orderly manner.” United States v. Pettes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224869 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2025).

State courts have the authority to get cell phone information across state lines. United States v. Wilnau, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225951 (D. Mont. Nov. 17, 2025).*

“Computers and related equipment” in the warrant includes cell phones. United States v. Kuhn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225738 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2025).*

The protective sweep before the warrant arrived was reasonable and limited. “While the Court notes that the affidavit of probable cause attached to the first search warrant could have provided more details regarding the alleged previous narcotics activities of Mims, there are sufficient facts alleged to demonstrate probable cause that evidence of the crime would be found in a particular place.” United States v. Mims, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226932 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2025).*

Posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Seeing handgun reasonably led to handcuffing to see if def had permit on him

M.D.Fla.: In a false arrest case, the sheriff involved admitted no 4A training

In this false arrest case, the sheriff admitted he had no training in the Fourth Amendment. Harris v. Breeden, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225584 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2025).

The frisk here was without reasonable suspicion, including the bag defendant had. McKissick v. Commonwealth, 2025 Ky. App. LEXIS 101 (Nov. 14, 2025).*

The court of appeals concludes that there was [barely] reasonable suspicion to continue this stop and it wasn’t based merely on a hunch. The officer articulated some grounds. Dobbin v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8804 (Tex. App. – Dallas Nov. 14, 2025).* [This should have been reversed. It was really thin.]

There was probable cause for the warrant, and defendant doesn’t even have standing. People v. Delaney, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 9214 (Nov. 17, 2025).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standing, Stop and frisk, Warrant execution | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: In a false arrest case, the sheriff involved admitted no 4A training

KS: KHP power for administrative searches of truck can’t be delegated to sheriffs

Under Kansas statute, only KHP officers can randomly stop regulated trucks for inspection, and it can’t be delegated to county sheriffs by an MOU. “There is no dispute here that regulation of commercial motor carriers triggers a substantial government interest.” But, under Burger v. New York, it must further the regulatory needs of the state. This fails Burger. State v. Sharp, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 53 (Nov. 14, 2025).

The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying a supplemental post-trial motion to suppress. Commonwealth v. Hill, 2025 PA Super 259 (Nov. 14, 2025).*

“The MDOC’s policy of conducting strip searches following contact visits is reasonable and therefore does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Parker v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29782 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2025).*

Defendant fails in his Franks challenge of the search warrant for BAC because the affidavit for warrant shows essentially full disclosure. People v. Martinez, 2025 NYLJ LEXIS 3509 (Putnam Co. Nov. 14, 2025).*

Posted in Administrative search, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Waiver | Comments Off on KS: KHP power for administrative searches of truck can’t be delegated to sheriffs

MSNOW: ICE’s biometric dragnet is a 21st century general warrant for your body

MSNOW: ICE’s biometric dragnet is a 21st century general warrant for your body by Robert Frommer (Detained persons are having DNA, fingerprints, and photographs collected despite no charges (“In addition to our DNA, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recently and quietly authorized ICE officers to forcibly collect and retain intimate identifiers: our fingerprints and digital images of our faces. Combined with other technologies, the department is creating a general warrant for our persons, the kind of abuse that ignited the American Revolution.”)).

Posted in Facial recognition | Comments Off on MSNOW: ICE’s biometric dragnet is a 21st century general warrant for your body

PR: No REP in property where def not entitled to be

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in property where the defendant isn’t entitled to be, abandoned or otherwise unoccupied. El Pueblo v. Rondón, 2025 TSPR 113 (Nov. 4, 2025). (translation by Lexis)

The stop of this known felon was with reasonable suspicion and then a gun was seen in plain view. That led to a search. Calling a drug dog was not unreasonable. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224471 (D.S.D. Nov. 12, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for a FST on defendant after a hit-and-run with a tree. State v. Wheeler, 2025-Ohio-5165 (2d Dist. Nov. 14, 2025).*

The stop was justified because the license plate holder border covered part of the state of issuance which the officer thought violated Arkansas law. United States v. Grace, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224162 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 14, 2025).*

Posted in Abandonment, Dog sniff, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on PR: No REP in property where def not entitled to be

S.D.Fla.: 16 shot ShotSpotter alert confirmed by witnesses was exigency to enter curtilage

A ShotSpotter alert of 16 gunshots from the vicinity of defendant’s home confirmed by witnesses in a car leaving the area was justification for exigent entry onto the curtilage. “Since the addition of the omitted information does not disturb the probable cause in the warrant to search Defendants’ home, there were no material omissions, and Defendants are not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Franks or suppression of the evidence recovered from the search.” United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224600 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2025).

“The evidence of record and the facts pleaded by Penascino show that the arrest was permitted under Pennsylvania law as the probable cause standard was met. Nothing before the Court indicates that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest. Thus, Penascino cannot show that he was falsely imprisoned. Therefore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.” Penascino v. Cope, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223747 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2025).*

Motion for sixth extension of time to file a motion to suppress is denied. A Franks motion was filed back in August. United States v. Hardison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224499 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Waiver | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: 16 shot ShotSpotter alert confirmed by witnesses was exigency to enter curtilage

CA11: TSA officers are LEOs for searches under the FTCA

TSA officers are law enforcement officers for searches under the FTCA. Five other circuits hold that. Koletas v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29609 (11th Cir. Nov. 12, 2025).

While each factor here isn’t reasonable suspicion on its own, they are in their totality. State v. Rainey, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 762 (Nov. 12, 2025).*

The search probably wasn’t valid under Gant, but it was under the automobile exception. United States v. Garrott, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222461 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 12, 2025).*

Reasonable suspicion isn’t subject to the good faith exception, except for potential reasonableness making it that way. But this wasn’t. State v. S.H.-M., 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 2317 (Nov. 12, 2025).*

Posted in Good faith exception, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA11: TSA officers are LEOs for searches under the FTCA

IA: Refusing to get out of the car when directed is RS

Note to sov cits: Refusing to get out of the car when directed is reasonable suspicion. State v. Carter, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 983 (Nov. 13, 2025).*

“Even the most seemingly trivial traffic infraction or equipment violation gives a peace officer probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist.” State v. Schmitz, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 980 (Nov. 13, 2025).*

A reasonable mistake of fact can support a stop. State v. Schmitz, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 980 (Nov. 13, 2025).*

Probable cause supported the warrant. “Alternatively, even if the court agreed with Garrett that the warrant lacked probable cause, the good-faith exception applies. The warrant was not ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render the officers’ belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.’” United States v. Garrett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222641 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 2025).*

Posted in Good faith exception, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on IA: Refusing to get out of the car when directed is RS

E.D.N.Y.: SW for cell phone at border after warrantless search was reasonable

CBP seized and searched defendant’s cell phones at the border under existing authority. After subsequent case law called that into question, the government sought a search warrant for the phones disclosing all the facts. The subsequent warrant was valid. United States v. Walden, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222763 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2025).

Unreasonable killing of a family dog is a seizure of property under the Fourth Amendment. Bledsoe v. City of Caddo Valley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221931 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 14, 2025).*

“Plaintiff alleges only that he was forcefully removed from his vehicle without his consent. Such allegations are insufficient to establish a claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” He refused an order to get out of the car. “Plaintiff responded, ‘I do not consent to any of this.’ … Officer Neal answered, ‘Shut up, this isn’t Tik Tok.’” Davis v. Olivera, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221894 (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2025).*

Ohio provides a mechanism to challenge searches and seizures in state court, so there’s no 2254 remedy just because you don’t like the outcome. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222816 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2025).*

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: SW for cell phone at border after warrantless search was reasonable

D.D.C.: Govt failed to prove area was “high crime” based on nine gun seizures in four months

When challenged, the government fails to prove that the area of the stop was “high crime.” There were nine gun seizures in four months in a 500 meter radius. “The Government has established, however, that Abass engaged in unprovoked and almost immediate flight upon noticing police. For the reasons below, this factor partially but not fully supports reasonable suspicion.” It doesn’t here, however. “Although the Government has failed to establish that plus factor here, it points to two other factors that-taken together-narrowly clear the bar,” and that’s that it appeared he was holding a gun against his body while running. United States v. Abass, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221425 (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 2025).

Plaintiff’s civil Franks claim fails. The alleged false statement was neither that nor material.
Ferrara v. Travis Cty. Att’y’s Office, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29567 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2025).*

Defendant had an accident in DC. When the police arrived to discuss it, he fled, discarding a gun en route under a car. The record supports that the officer could see an illegal oversized magazine through the window of the car, based on the inference the gun was illegal because it was discarded. Miller v. United States, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 367 (Nov. 6, 2025).

Posted in Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Govt failed to prove area was “high crime” based on nine gun seizures in four months

The Guardian: Kansas county to pay more than $3m over police raiding local newspaper

The Guardian: Kansas county to pay more than $3m over police raiding local newspaper by Lucy Campbell (“Marion county agrees to apologize over 2023 raid that led to national outcry over press freedom, said newspaper’s editor”)

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on The Guardian: Kansas county to pay more than $3m over police raiding local newspaper

FL4: Welfare check not unreasonable just because a crime might also be involved

A 911 call about a potential impaired driver with kids in the car justified the officer’s interaction with the defendant. A welfare community caretaking check isn’t unreasonable just because it’s intertwined with a potential crime. Children can’t be expected to fend for themselves in this situation. State v. Leiby, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 8339 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2025).

“As did the district court, for each officer, we start and end with the ‘clearly established law’ prong of the qualified immunity analysis. We do so because Johnson offers no clearly established law applicable to either officer’s conduct, and that is fatal to her arguments for both Connolly and Vado.” It is plaintiff’s burden to show it. Johnson v. Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29049 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025).*

The state’s mechanism for resolution of search and seizure claims is adequate for the Stone bar. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218066 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2025).*

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on FL4: Welfare check not unreasonable just because a crime might also be involved

E.D.Cal.: A cell phone number in SW papers isn’t reason to seal them

The government doesn’t provide justification for sealing this search warrant application merely because there are cell phone number in it. It is presumptively a public record. In re Matter of Application by United States for Search Warrant to Search, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218242 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025).

California law provides a mechanism to challenge searches, and failure to do so here was Stone barred. Bryson v. Madden, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221586 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025).*

Defendant’s discovery request for video of the controlled buy that led to the warrant wasn’t timely, and the court could affirm on that basis alone. On the merits, however, it is speculative that it’s Brady material. United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29357 (11th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025).*

Posted in Discovery, Issue preclusion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: A cell phone number in SW papers isn’t reason to seal them

MS: Forensic search of computer in a county other than where SW was served violates no law

The fact a forensic search of defendant’s computer was done in a county other than where the search warrant for its seizure was executed doesn’t violate any law. Fields v. State, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 430 (Nov. 4, 2025).

The bodycam shows the use of force against the agitated plaintiff was reasonable when he produced a knife. Padilla v. City of N.Y., 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 8670 (Queens Co. Oct. 24, 2025).*

The Spanish speaking defendant consented to the search of his phone. He came to the police station with a translator, and the objective facts showed that the situation was not coercive. Garcia v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8651 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Nov. 10, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s illegal search claim here would backdoor his criminal case, so it’s Heck barred. Allee v. Matjeka, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218052 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2025).*

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Voluntariness | Comments Off on MS: Forensic search of computer in a county other than where SW was served violates no law