Defendant was at a park with his child and he saw someone he knew who he went to and talked to. Police started coming for the other person, so he left him and went back to his child. Then two police officers came to him. Then three more. He was “encircled” and questioned about a gun, which he admitted having. His detention was without reasonable suspicion. The gun should have been suppressed. Ervin v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 11 (Jan. 22, 2026).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the warrant here where defendant admitted to having drugs when detained. Miles v. Stonebreaker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 271770 (D.S.C. Dec. 30, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion for the stop then furtive movements in the car, and defendant was on supervision with a search waiver. State v. Strasser, 2026 Wisc. App. LEXIS 42 (Jan. 21, 2026).*
Email warrant was particular enough with “practical accuracy”: “But the Second Circuit has upheld the validity of warrants without the presence of exacting, rigid limitations, noting that the focus is ‘on practical accuracy, as opposed to technical precision.’ United States v. Tompkins, 118 F.4th 280, 287-88 (2d Cir. 2024); see also Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 102 (rejecting defendant’s argument that ‘the warrant was insufficiently particular because the government and the magistrate judge failed to specify the search terms and protocols ex ante in the warrant’).” United States v. Guan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11221 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2026).*
Minor discrepancies between the officer’s testimony, police report, and bodycam don’t undermine his credibility. The bodycam shows the probable cause. United States v. Darwah, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10143 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2026).*
Failure to timely signal justified appellant’s stop. United States v. Ausherman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 271733 (D. Neb. Dec. 10, 2025).*
Defendant’s pants were transported from the hospital to the jail, and inevitable discovery covers their search. United States v. Gibbins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1432 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026).
The warrant for five cell phones was executed within the 14-day limitation. The fact one was searched again wasn’t sufficient grounds to suppress. Nor did it violate Rule 41. United States v. Medina, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9926 (D.R.I. Jan. 20, 2026).*
The prosecutors who sought these warrants and the judge who signed off on them were absolutely immune from suit. Ornelas v. California, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9953 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026).*
Defendant argued below that the lack of a proper return voided the search, but the court held that a return was ministerial and didn’t prejudice him. He abandoned that argument on appeal. Wright v. State, 2026 Miss. App. LEXIS 20 (Jan. 20, 2026).*
The AG issued a subpoena to a hospital for records of adolescent gender affirming care. The subpoena is quashed. The subject has Art. III standing. There is no allegation of a health care offense to support the subpoena. In addition, the subject has a constitutional right of privacy in their records. In re 2025 Subpoena to Child.’s Nat’l Hosp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10523 (D. Md. Jan. 21, 2026):
Posted inExcessive force, Immigration arrests|Comments Off on MS.now: Federal immigration agents keep shooting at drivers. We tracked 15 cases since July.
Defendant abandoned the cell phone he dropped in flight from the police which he failed to return for. Franklin v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 20 (Jan. 21, 2026).*
Defendant filed his first post-conviction claim not mentioning ineffective assistance for not pursuing a motion to suppress. Then he filed another that did. It was barred. He also claimed it violated F.R.Crim.P. 41 which is irrelevant in state court. Also, defense counsel was alleged to be ineffective for not challenging the warrant because the affiant officer was convicted of conspiracy to distribute fentanyl years later. State v. Michie, 2026-Ohio-163 (10th Dist. Jan. 20, 2026).*
“Mr. Rodriguez argues that merely being seen with or associating with a suspected criminal does not subject a person to a lawful stop and warrantless search. … However, even if the officers’ reasonable, articulable suspicion of Mr. Rodriguez’s criminal activity were insufficient alone, his driving/vehicle infractions provided lawful bases for the investigatory stop.” United States v. Rodriguez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9795 (D. Minn. Jan. 20, 2026).*
Defendant was stopped in a high crime area at night, and his furtive movements in the car justified a protective sweep of the car. United States v. Erving, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1377 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026).*
Defendant’s car was searched under a warrant and the alleged false statements weren’t material. The automobile exception could be applicable but isn’t even decided. United States v. Conner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1296 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026).*
Defendant consented to a search of a sunglasses case by a social worker in the house. That eliminated any expectation of privacy in it, and then a police officer could search it, too. State v. Mogren, 2026 ND 2 (Jan. 15, 2026).*
A broken taillight at night is justification for a stop. United States v. Briggs, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8972 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2026).*
The L.A. Press Club’s suit against DHS for excessive force against the press corps can proceed and summary judgment for the defense is denied. “The Court rejects Defendants’ standing and First Amendment arguments for reasons similar to those already articulated in its PI and Stay Orders. The Court likewise rejects Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiffs’ excessive force claims. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged at least some physically-incapacitating uses of force that may constitute unreasonable seizures under applicable Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and others that ‘shock the conscience’ under the substantive due process test.” L.A. Press Club v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9983 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026).
“[T]he Court concludes that Rinke had reasonable suspicion based on his observations of Rivers when he initially made contact. Rinke’s wholly credible testimony of (1) an ‘overbearing’ odor of perfume, which he judged to be a ‘masking smell,’ (2) Rivers’ slurred speech, and (3) her ‘glossy’ eyes provided reasonable suspicion of her intoxication.” United States v. Rivers, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9161 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 2026).*
Posted inExcessive force, Reasonable suspicion, Standing|Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: DHS’s motion for summary judgment denied; L.A. Press Club states cause of action for excessive force against press
Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.
The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.
In addition, the memo is “eyes only” and the officers aren’t allowed to have it, just read it.
The email warrant was particular enough. While a large volume of information was provided by Google, it was then particularly searched, and that satisfies Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Garcia, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9434 (D. Colo. Jan. 16, 2026).
A 141-day delay in getting a federal search warrant for defendant’s cell phone was not unreasonable, all things considered. United States v. Thibou, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1299 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026).*
The record is incomplete on whether defendant consented. Any ruling would be based on a hypothetical. State v. Anderson, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 16, 2026).*
ICE protestors have standing to assert Fourth Amendment claims against unlawful uses of force against them because they will continue. The possibility of a recurrence is more than speculative. Arrests of peaceful protestors is enjoined. High likelihood of success on the merits. Tincher v. Noem, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9436 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2026).*
The state used a search warrant to access the defense expert’s work product in a sex case. The court held hearings and found that the attorney-client work product was not accessed by the state but ordered the data product of the search destroyed, refusing to dismiss the case as a sanction. Affirmed. State v. Camara, 2026 UT App 5, 2026 Utah App. LEXIS 5 (Jan. 15, 2026).
A search warrant was executed at a property defendant sometimes stayed at that he failed to tell USPO about. Enough here for detention pending final hearing. United States v. Copeland, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8754 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2026).*
Defendant’s traffic stop led to reasonable suspicion he was driving under the influence. United States v. Rivers, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9161 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 2026).*
The in camera submissions of the Attorney General on this FISA warrant satisfy the FISA requirements. And there is probable cause. United States v. Terry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9227 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2026).*
Posted inFISA, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution|Comments Off on UT: State used SW to get defense expert’s computer data; ordered destroyed, but case not dismissed
Responding to a call, defendant fairly matched the description. When he would not identify himself, it was reasonable to handcuff him for a few minutes while it was sorted out. United States v. Troupe, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9010 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 16, 2026).*
Police were called because two men renting a U-Haul truck were suspicious according to the rental agent. They were handcuffed for 10 minutes then released. There are questions of fact about all this. Summary judgment denied. Lee v. Budde, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8651 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026).*
In executing an anticipatory warrant for a package, officers could also use that same probable cause and past knowledge of the defendant to search his vehicle on the apartment complex’s parking lot. Diverting the package from one city to another when in transit didn’t require reasonable suspicion but they had it anyway. United States v. Dawson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8941 (D. Haw. Jan. 16, 2026).*
The dog handler’s testimony that the dog was certified before this sniff was sufficient to show the dog was reliable. State v. Murphy, 2026-Ohio-143 (2d Dist. Jan. 13, 2026).
Search warrants can be based on hearsay. Mendenhall v. City & Cty. of Denver, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1187 (10th Cir. Jan. 16, 2026).*
Any minor offense justifies a stop. “Based on Deputy Anthony Crawford’s credible testimony and the lack of any evidence contradicting it, Judge Nelson correctly determined that Deputy Crawford had a reasonable basis to believe the defendant committed a traffic violation and therefore probable cause existed to initiate the traffic stop.” United States v. Ausherman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8752 (D. Neb. Jan. 16, 2026).*
There is no Fourth Amendment claim for a prison cell search. Muhammad v. Piston, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8690 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2026).*
The court was asked to issue a search warrant for execution 6 am to 9 pm. The court required 9-2 so children won’t be around. The officer agreed, the ADA did not. This explains why that’s a reasonable restriction. Matter of Application for a Search Warrant, 2026 NY Slip Op 50027(U), 2026 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 46 (Queens Co. Jan. 12, 2026).
Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation in a high crime area. Officers asked if he was armed and he said he was. Further computer inquiries showed he was a felon. That reasonably led to a search of the car. United States v. Claybon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 271021 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 25, 2025).*
Things seized by officers under a search warrant, other than stolen property, can be subject to forfeiture under state law. Commonwealth v. Ivarson, 2026 Mass. App. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 16, 2026).*
SnapChat viewing a 16-second video that came through its system was a private search. It was not unreasonable for officers to view it too without a warrant when SnapChat sent it to the police. Then that led to a warrant for defendant’s place. State v. Gasper, 2026 WI 3, 2026 Wisc. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 14, 2026).
The officer’s stop of defendant led to observations that added up to reasonable suspicion that defendant, a convicted felon, might be armed. United States v. Mack, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 271002 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2025).*
Defendant’s purse left in the house when the police arrived was subject to search under the warrant. Even if the good faith exception applied, there would be no appreciable deterrence from suppression here. United States v. Bryant, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8274 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2026).*
Defendant used a homeless resource center by day for taking showers. He was not an overnight guest and had no standing in the shower dressing area. State v. Zackaria, 2026 ME 2, 2026 Me. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 13, 2026).
Officers could enter the home here based on a domestic violence call seeing an injured woman at the door. United States v. Leaven, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 270999 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2025).*
Requiring an ID before filing a document in court under state law is not an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure. Hill-Yisra’El v. McCord, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8458 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2026).*
Plaintiff’s search at an international airport is not sufficiently like Bivens that it’s unlikely SCOTUS would recognize this as a cause of action. Benderoff v. Johansen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1094 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2026).*
Defendant was in custody for Miranda when a warrant was executed at his house at 6 am and he was taken outside, separated from his family, and ziptied but told he was not under arrest. State v. Magana-Arevalo, 2026 Wash. LEXIS 59 (Jan. 15, 2026).
The warrant was for defendant’s premises, and it mentioned storage sheds and a camper on the property. The camper was subject to search under the warrant. United States v. Barsalou, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7419 (D. Vt. Jan. 12, 2026).*
A threat to tow an illegally parked vehicle is not a seizure. Metrospeedy Operations, LLC v. Nordstrom, 2025 NY Slip Op 34963(U) (N.Y. Co. Dec. 19, 2025).*
“Here, the problem with Mims’s argument is that if the elements of the Facebook warrant to which he objects are stricken, the warrant is still supported by sufficient probable cause and a sufficient nexus. In other words, even if Shanks’s statements were reckless misstatements (which the Court finds they were not), they were not material.” So no Franks violation. United States v. Mims, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7816 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 15, 2026).*
Posted inCurtilage, Custody, Franks doctrine, Seizure|Comments Off on WA: SW at 6 am, ziptied, questioned, but told he wasn’t under arrest is still custody
The officer believed defendant’s name was on an old warrant list they get from the magistrates once every week or two. The age of the list denied individualized suspicion. It wasn’t checked before the stop (even though it turned out there was still a warrant). State v. Robles, 2026 N.M. App. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 15, 2026):
The Intercept: FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext (“On Wednesday morning, the FBI raided the home of Washington Post journalist Hannah Natanson in an alarming escalation of the Trump administration’s war on press freedom. The raid can be seen as a direct result of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision last year to reverse media protections for journalists from having their records searched during leak investigations — a decision that was a sham from the start. The search of Natanson’s home was allegedly part of an investigation into a government contractor, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, who is accused of illegally retaining classified information. Press freedom advocates have said the raid violates federal law and endangers First Amendment freedoms. The Post also received a subpoena related to Perez-Lugones on Wednesday morning, according to the paper’s own reporting. Bondi laid the groundwork for this problematic search nearly a year ago, when she rescinded Biden-era media guidelines that protected reporters from being compelled to disclose their sources or having their records searched.”)
"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.
