There was reasonable suspicion enough potential for dangerousness for a protective sweep of defendant’s car. “The district court’s dangerousness analysis relied on four factors: (1) Raban’s gang affiliation, (2) the high-crime and rival-gang neighborhood, (3) Armstrong’s presence, and (4) Raban’s ankle monitor.” The latter gets little weight, and it’s a close call, but they find reasonable suspicion. While there were six officers around, defendant was going to be released back to his car with a citation. That was still enough. United States v. Raban, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33894 (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).
It was objectively reasonable for police to believe that defendant’s wife had apparent authority to consent to entry into and search of a garage she shared. The officer’s use of a flashlight to look in a gap between things wasn’t an unreasonable search. United States v. Serrano, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33904 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).*
Defendant was arrested on a warrant that included a reference to an allegedly illegally searched cell phone. Striking that information from the affidavit still leaves probable cause. And his later statement was attenuated from the alleged unlawful arrest. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267001 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2025).*
Failure to file a pretrial motion to suppress is waiver, and it will not be considered on plain error review, and for good reason. Swanson v. State, 2025 Del. LEXIS 504 (Dec. 31, 2025):
State officers seized defendant’s Rolex watch in a search, and there was a federal prosecution, but the watch was never part of it nor evidence of anything. Thus, Rule 41(g) affords him no relief here. There’s no constructive federal possession under 41(g). United States v. Gasparyan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33898 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).
Prison cell search claim fails as a matter of law. Graham v. Felty, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267433 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 2025).*
Stone bars petitioner’s 2254 over his search claim. Mendonca v. Warden, Madison Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267435 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 30, 2025).*
“[T]he [166 page] affidavit establishes sufficient facts to establish a proper nexus between the evidence to be seized—such as the cell phone—and Target Premises 8” and probable cause. United States v. Hester-Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267569 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 30, 2025).*
A municipal police officer had authority to request consent after a stop outside his territorial jurisdiction. One justice concurring said that’s not a Fourth Amendment violation anyway, and suppression wouldn’t be an appropriate remedy. State v. Repple, 2025 Fla. LEXIS 2243 (Dec. 30, 2025).
The right to be free from excessive force was clearly established, and there are disputed facts on this record requiring summary judgment on qualified immunity be denied. Cooper v. Doyle, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33951 (4th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).*
Defendant granted a general consent to search his car for drugs. People v. White, 2025 IL App (2d) 240477 (Dec. 30, 2025).*
Photos taken during execution of a search warrant are coming in at trial. “Photos of the location where the items were recovered supports the allegation by placing the search warrant in context.” United States v. Jenifer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264647 (D. Md. Dec. 23, 2025).*
“Tennessee’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are identical to those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000).” State v. Mallory, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 632 (Dec. 23, 2025).*
The affidavit for search warrant wasn’t stale. This was an ongoing drug operation with a controlled buy and surveillance, and events were continuing. State v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-5749 (5th Dist. Dec. 23, 2025).*
The stop was justified by a prior controlled buy with a CI and a traffic offense. United States v. Bugg, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266013 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 4, 2025),*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on D.Md.: Photos taken during search come in at trial
Defendant filed a motion to suppress but didn’t get a hearing or ruling on it. Then, at trial, made a motion in limine but that didn’t preserve the lack of probable cause issue from the motion to suppress. It’s all treated as unpreserved for appeal. Barrera v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9932 (Tex. App. – Austin Dec. 30, 2025).
Mr. Daws had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails on a server he sold with the business and continued to use the email address. Jim Daws Trucking, LLC v. Daws, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266222 (D. Neb. Dec. 29, 2025).*
A class action for arrestees for violating terms of electronic monitoring fails class certification. Wilbourn v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266516 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2025).*
On plain error review, it can’t be said there was no reasonable suspicion whatsoever essentially based on a license plate reader that the car’s round trip to Atlanta was suspiciously short. Thus, “we cannot say that the district court committed plain error in admitting the evidence gathered during the traffic stop. At trial, Officer Powers testified that he conducted the traffic stop because (1) Hill made unusual lane changes to distance himself from Powers’s patrol car and (2) the license place database showed that Hill had made a suspiciously quick round trip to Atlanta. Drawing on his experience as an officer, as is permitted under Supreme Court precedent, Powers determined that these circumstances gave him the necessary ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal activity to justify a traffic stop. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273. And because Hill does not, and cannot, point to any ‘controlling precedent from the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit’ that would make these circumstances insufficient for demonstrating reasonable suspicion, we cannot find that the district court committed plain error.” [Or is this: you can’t show us the officer was wrong, so that’s that? Remember that most states require motorists to pull over away from emergency vehicles on the shoulder.] United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33822 (11th Cir. Dec. 29, 2025).
2254 petitioner can’t show that his cell phone was searched before the warrant issued. Perez-Diaz v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266177 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2025).*
The way defendant was walking, supported by bodycam video, makes it reasonably apparent he was carrying a weapon. United States v. Bonaparte, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266178 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2025).*
If you’re challenging whether the officer exceeded an inventory policy, it needs to be in evidence. Here there was only testimony about the written policy, and the court could rely on that. Here, the claim was that inventorying a backpack in an impounded car was unreasonable, but it was found within policy. State v. Leatham, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 210 (Dec. 26, 2025). [Note: The burden is on the prosecution in warrantless search cases, but this points out that the defense can have burdens, too. Like completing the record.]
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. “… Defendant points to the fact that APD deleted the audio recording of the controlled buy and no longer has the buy money as proof that the controlled buy never happened, and that the statements in the affidavit identifying him are false. … His argument is unpersuasive. First, Defendant does not claim the statements describing the controlled buy were false or misleading. He does not, for instance, challenge the statements that CS-1 received APD funds for the controlled buy, or that police watched CS-1 walk up to the Kelly Avenue house, enter, and leave with fentanyl. … He only challenges the statement detailing what CS-1 told police after the controlled buy. Therefore, Defendant has not satisfied his burden to make a substantial preliminary showing that the controlled buy never happened. Rather, the Government has proven, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the controlled buy occurred.” United States v. Portis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 263643 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2025).*
From 10/5 post: Defendant here satisfied his Franks burden of showing a lack of probable cause after the false information was excised. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195302 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2025).* The government’s motion for reconsideration is denied on a theory never expressed before in this case. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266270 (E.D. La. Dec. 29, 2025). It’s a party’s obligation to raise all their issues timely, not after losing on their original grounds:
“An arrest warrant is exhausted once used. Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 546 (1952); ….” After that, another must issue. The trial court didn’t err in requiring one. Commonwealth v. Superior Court, 2025 MP 14 (N.M.I. Dec. 23, 2025).
“Detective Strickenberger’s affidavit provides a nexus between the apartment and drug trafficking, and the information in the affidavit was not stale. Even if probable cause were lacking, the undersigned finds the officers executed the search warrant in good faith.” United States v. Barnes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265145 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 23, 2025).*
On petitioner’s application for a CoA from denial of his habeas, it is denied on all grounds. One is a challenge to five searches: two administrative searches and three warrants. He doesn’t show that any of them are unreasonable. Thus, counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging them. Zahraie v. Nagy, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33779 (6th Cir. Dec. 26, 2025).*
The district court erred in suppressing by finding no probable cause for a stop. “Because we conclude that Officer Prater’s observations of defendant in a drunken state no more than one hour before the stop furnished the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle, we reverse the orders of suppression and dismissal, and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” People v. Anderson, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 10408 (Dec. 23, 2025) (2-1).*
Having lawfully seized plaintiff’s cell phone but not seeking a warrant for it for days didn’t state a claim for relief. Langham v. Noyd, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33559 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025).*
Defendant was in a taxi stopped for a traffic violation and raw marijuana was smelled. A loose cell phone was on the floor and no one claimed it. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that phone. State v. Smith, 2025-Ohio-5752 (4th Dist. Dec. 9, 2025).*
WaPo: ICE shift in tactics leads to soaring number of at-large arrests, data shows by Marianne LeVine, Emmanuel Martinez & Álvaro Valiño (“The agency has moved away from focusing on arresting migrants at local jails to tracking them down in communities as the Trump administration presses to increase deportations, a Washington Post analysis found.”)
Posted inImmigration arrests|Comments Off on WaPo: ICE shift in tactics leads to soaring number of at-large arrests, data shows
Where the defense didn’t argue a lack of probable cause at the suppression hearing, that could not be raised on appeal. State v. Arbogast, 2025 Haw. App. LEXIS 617 (Dec. 23, 2025) (unpublished).*
Defendant’s stop was reasonable and his spontaneous statements are admissible. United States v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265262 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 23, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging a search where petitioner said “nothing was found.” United States v. Goodson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265744 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 19, 2025).*
When defendant was stopped, the officers had reasonable suspicion for it on the totality. United States v. Kerney, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264970 (D. Or. Dec. 23, 2025).*
A medical examiner’s alleged false autopsy report didn’t state a Franks violation because he wasn’t the affiant in any warrant. Dean v. Phatak, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33645 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025):
Even if the passcode was obtained unreasonably, this iPhone would have been gotten into anyway. The officer had done it before on these earlier models, and that’s inevitable discovery. United States v. Fassero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265273 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2025).
A suppression hearing isn’t required merely when the sufficiency of the information in the affidavit is challenged. Fairly read, the affidavit shows probable cause. The good faith exception doesn’t even have to be considered. United States v. Favors, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265628 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 24, 2025).*
Just “because the issuing judge and the affiant, law enforcement center, and/or jail share the same address” doesn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim. Owens v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 264582 (D.S.C. Nov. 21, 2025).*
The impoundment of plaintiff’s car being unreasonable, the inventory was not valid. Langham v. Spencer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33555 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 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.
