During a child pornography warranted search, officers found a notebook of passwords, and it was within the scope of the warrant. United States v. Lira-Prado, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 982 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026).
One child pornography warrant led to another. The court does not find prosecutorial vindictiveness in the process. United States v. Bennett, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 966 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2026).*
Appellant’s argument at his trial over a shooting was lack of probable cause with the trial court considering information outside the affidavit for the warrant. On appeal he argued that the execution of the search warrant went beyond the scope of search for firearms, and they seized drugs, too. That issue is unpreserved. Kelly v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 24 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Jan. 6, 2026) (unpublished).*
Only a governmental entity gets to use the Stored Communications Act to get emails. The defense can’t do it seeking even alleged exculpatory emails. Perry v. Silverthon, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 828 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2026).
“Single-incident liability ‘is generally reserved for those cases in which the government actor was provided no training whatsoever.’ … Hankins also may not manufacture a failure-to-train claim based on his own particular injury. …” Hankins v. Martin, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 128 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026).*
In a tax preparation fraud case, defendant “also suggests that the volume of evidence seized—‘75 bankers’ boxes of physical records, 46 physical devices, and 82,554 data files from three email accounts’—highlights ‘the lack of clear instructions’ in the warrants.” The warrant was sufficiently particular for five years worth of records and probable cause was shown for them. United States v. Manavalan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 953 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2026).*
“The Fourth Amendment is implicated when medical examinations are undertaken at the initiative of a state official for an investigatory purpose. See Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 606 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to ‘searches and seizures,’ including medical examinations, ‘made in the course of child abuse investigations’). Investigative medical examinations conducted without parental consent or judicial authorization violate the Constitution unless ‘reasonable or probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying an emergency examination’ existed at the time the examination was performed.” McInnis v. City of N.Y., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 269192 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2025).
Defendant’s Franks claim is denied as conclusory and lacking any allegation of prejudice. United States v. Boyle, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 318 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2026).*
Crossing the fog line generally supports a stop in this circuit. United States v. Seakor, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 879 (D.S.D. Jan. 2, 2026).*
Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity. State v. Starcher, 2026-Ohio-15, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 11 (5th Dist. Jan. 6, 2026).
In a civil case, the reference to Fourth Amendment was a typo for Fourteenth. It will be considered the Fourteenth. Eleveld v. Ill. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 659 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2026).*
The federal suit over plaintiff’s November 2025 arrest is barred by Younger. If there’s an excessive force complaint, file it separately. Ellis v. Rivaslariosa, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 727 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2026).*
The dashcam came on after the traffic violation so it’s not shown on the video, and the video can’t be relied upon to discount the USMJ’s findings. United States v. Seakor, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 879 (D.S.D. Jan. 2, 2026).*
Posted inIssue preclusion, Particularity|Comments Off on OH5: Ohio recognizes Groh incorporation by reference for particularity
It isn’t a proper Fourth Amendment challenge for a warrant not to be executed because no one is home. Rodriguez-Ferreira v. Sweeney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 560 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2026).
Defense counsel objected to the search warrant twice on Franks grounds and lost. It wasn’t ineffective assistance of counsel to not do it a third time. United States v. Boyle, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 318 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2026).*
2254 petitioner’s two search claims (tracking warrant and search of house) are barred by Stone. Hill v. Heath, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 443 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2026).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress text messages from his phone. First, the case he relies on was decided four years after his trial. Second, it wasn’t prejudicial. Cummings v. Guerrero, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 505 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2026).*
Defense counsel didn’t object to the search warrant and application coming into evidence in the state’s case because it fit within the defense theory, despite being full of hearsay, assuming defendant would testify, as he said he would. Then he was a no show for the rest of the trial. Not ineffective assistance of counsel. And, even if it was, no prejudice. Stinnett v. State, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 5, 2026). {I had an AUSA try that at a trial over my objection that it would be reversible error [said to the AUSA, not the judge]. When it was apparent it was coming in, I changed strategy to avoid that and did. Full of hearsay, but no one seemed to care since it was the defense objecting.}
“Here, the search warrant permitted investigators to search Gibson’s hotel room.” They did. It was within the scope of search permitted. United States v. Gibson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2026).*
The video from the book-in area seems to contradict the officers’ reports on use of force. Qualified immunity denied for now. Lovell v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2026).*
Five packages from Puerto Rico arrived at defendant’s apartment building for fictitious tenants in 303 and 404. After they were left in the alcove, defendant was seen to remove them to his apartment, 901. The sixth package had a positive dog alert. An anticipatory warrant was sought for 901 where it was expected to be moved, and it was based on probable cause. The scope of search included a safe in the apartment. United States v. Marsden, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217 (D. Mass. Jan. 3, 2026).*
Officers were looking for defendant, and they saw him. He took off running. He had a red and black backpack. The officer lost him in the brush cover. A little later they found him without the backpack. It was objectively reasonable to believe it had been abandoned when it was found. United States v. Hatfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 2, 2026).*
2254 petitioner’s search and seizure claim was decided on adequate and independent state grounds below with default, and Stone would apply in any event. Rivera v. Kopp, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2026).*
Posted inAbandonment, Anticipatory warrant|Comments Off on D.Mass.: Five prior surveilled deliveries led to anticipatory warrant
“Here we conclude that, based on the undisputed facts, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that someone in Cannon’s home needed immediate aid and that there was a compelling need to enter without a warrant. The officers were informed, via radio and dispatch notes, that they were responding to a 911 call about a domestic violence incident and that Cannon was in the home, had ‘lost his mind,’ and was beating up a woman. This information, which the officers knew had been relayed to the 911 caller from somebody who had been in the home, would support a reasonable belief that a person was inside and needed immediate aid.” That was enough in other cases. Cannon v. Filip, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 34070 (7th Cir. Dec. 31, 2025).*
“The defendant’s contention that the indictment should be dismissed as fruit of the poisonous tree of the illegal stop of the defendant leading to his arrest for the instant offenses is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit, as the evidence against the defendant, including surveillance video, was not fruit of the illegal stop.” People v. Loncke, 2025 NY Slip Op 07409 (2d Dept. Dec. 31, 2025).* [The conviction was November 2019, six years ago.]
Defense counsel got the AUSA to agree not to use defendant’s phone records at trial. Therefore, he can’t be ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress. Arellano v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268132 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2025).*
The charge was impersonating an FBI agent at a school student pickup line. A warrant was issued for defendant’s house and computers to see if he bought faux FBI paraphernalia online.* The district court suppressed for lack of nexus. Reversed; there was minimal nexus for the good faith exception: “In addressing whether the good-faith presumption holds, we ask ‘not whether the Magistrate erred in believing there was sufficient probable cause to support the scope of the warrant … [but] instead whether the Magistrate so obviously erred that any reasonable officer would have recognized the error.’ Messerschmidt, 565 U.S. at 556. The focus here is on nexus to the home. Even if Officer Heidlage’s affidavit lacked the requisite nexus between Mr. Williams’s suspected criminal activity and his home for probable cause, it still provided a minimal connection justifying good-faith reliance on it.” United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9 (10th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026). [*This has great potential for abuse.]
Officers were looking for defendant, and they saw him. He took off running. He had a red and black backpack. The officer lost him in the brush cover. A little later they found him without the backpack. It was objectively reasonable to believe it had been abandoned when it was found. United States v. Hatfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 2, 2026).*
A Facebook photo that appeared to be a selfie on defendant’s Facebook account wearing the shirt witnesses to the shooting describe supported a search warrant for defendant’s cell phone. Commonwealth v. Carleton, 2026 Mass. LEXIS 1 (Jan. 5, 2026).
Plaintiff states a claim: “While the facts alleged are sparse, nothing in the Complaint suggests Plaintiff presented an immediate threat to the safety of Wiebers or others nor is there any indication Plaintiff was resisting or attempting to evade arrest before Wiebers exercised force. Plaintiff alleges he was already placed in handcuffs when he was struck twice with a blunt object, resulting in two skull fractures. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court concludes Plaintiff has stated a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Wiebers in his individual capacity.” Stugart v. Wiebers, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 (D. Neb. Jan. 2, 2026).*
The video from the book-in area seems to contradict the officers’ reports on use of force. Qualified immunity denied for now. Lovell v. Clermont Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2026).*
A three-week-old controlled buy was part of the probable cause. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t impose a “shot clock” on staleness. Nexus was clear: “The nexus in this case, by contrast, left nothing to the imagination.” Police used pole camera surveillance of a storage unit for several days. That was no trespass. And it was with a warrant, no less. Finally Franks: “Easter cannot meet this standard. He provides no evidence that even suggests, much less shows, that the police had an ‘intention to mislead.’ That alone undercuts his challenge. Making matters worse, none of the alleged omissions identified by Easter would have changed the probable-cause calculation.” United States v. Easter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 49 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026).*
“When Childress moved toward them, his left arm and hand swung back and forth while his right arm did not, and his right hand was not visible. Prior to the encounter, the officers were informed that Childress was suspected of attempted homicide, and that he may have had access to a firearm. The officers testified that as Childress approached them, they could only see his left hand. And Childress did not respond to the officers’ repeated commands to “drop the gun” and show his hands. Under these circumstances, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Bohanon’s and Walford’s belief that Childress possessed a firearm was reasonable as a matter of law.” K.C. v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10 (9th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026).*
Petitioner obtained his search warrant application years after he was convicted. His habeas is denied. He claims it shows he was actually innocent, but this is only potential legal innocence, not actual innocence, and there’s a difference. Davis v. Warden, FCI Berlin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 263415 (D.N.H. Nov. 18, 2025).*
“The State of Tennessee and other interested parties are invited to file briefs in this case expressing views as amici curiae …. The Court is particularly interested in briefing on the following issue: whether an officer’s accidental shooting of a bystander constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation and therefore qualifies as an ‘injury aris[ing] out of … civil rights’ under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-205(2).” Guirguis v. Metro. Gov’t of Nash., 2025 Tenn. LEXIS 516 (Dec. 16, 2025).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waived her Fourth Amendment claim, and there’s no claim defense counsel was ineffective. State v. Gibbons, 2025-Ohio-5713 (11th Dist. Dec. 22, 2025).*
Posted inWaiver, Warrant papers|Comments Off on D.N.H.: Late disclosed SW application doesn’t show “actual innocence”; “legal innocence” is different
The drug dog arrived while the traffic tickets were still being written. All the record shows is that. The record doesn’t “reveal how much time elapsed between the canine’s arrival and it alerting to the odor of unlawful drugs emanating from the vehicle. We have no basis for concluding that the time that elapsed impermissibly extended the duration of the stop.” Hunt v. Commonwealth, 2026 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 2, 2026) (unpublished).
Whether a condemnation claim also violates the Fourth Amendment, plaintiff would have to satisfy Monell, too. 708-710 Mkt. St., LLC v. Borough of Berwick, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267614 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2025).*
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s 1983 case on Heck and other grounds. The district court didn’t decide that yet, so the order is not final and not appealable. Jew v. Dobbins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33972 (5th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).*
No clear line of cases suggests the officer’s searching inside plaintiff’s underwear was unreasonable where it was not seen by anyone else. “Plaintiff’s right to be free from such a search was not clearly established at that time and Defendant Nutt is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity with respect to this claim.” Cross v. Nutt, No. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268712 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 31, 2025).
The trooper saw defendant concealing an apparent baggie of drugs during a stop, and that resulted in an automobile exception search. Cross v. Nutt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268712 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 31, 2025).*
Being grabbed and thrown to the ground was a seizure. Here, it was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Perez-Miller, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267701 (D.P.R. Dec. 29, 2025).*
The issuing magistrate is not shown to be an adjunct law enforcement officer just because the judge shares an address with a police department. Martinez v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268655 (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2025).
The search incident of defendant’s person at the time of his arrest was reasonable. The body cam also showed why a protective sweep of his motel room was valid: there was someone in the bathroom. State v. Brooks, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 2556 (La. App. 5 Cir Dec. 29, 2025).*
Officers in your house for execution of a search warrant who follow you around for safety purposes have not necessarily curtailed your freedom of movement. United States v. Coffelt, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268383 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2025).*
Child pornography probable cause allegations, especially those on a computer have a “long shelf life” and virtually never go stale. United States v. Picca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267611 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2025).
Plaintiff alleged enough to proceed past § 1915A screening with her § 1983 complaint that she was arrested without probable cause for disorderly conduct. Bordock v. Mt. Home, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268269 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 12, 2025).*
Officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had drugs secreted in his car when it was stopped and searched. The government contended he lacked standing because he disclaimed ownership, but that doesn’t even have to be decided since he loses on the merits. United States v. Carlock, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 268127 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 29, 2025).*
"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.
