Defendant used someone else’s cell phone and officers pinged it to find him. He had no standing for the borrowed phone. After arrest, he admitted the shooting in a jail call. “Defendant’s temporary use of the phone does not automatically create an expectation of privacy, and we do not assume ownership or a possessory interest in the phone based on mere possession.” State v. Escalante, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 908 (Dec. 17, 2025).
Statute requires lane changes be done safely, and there’s no legal basis for a “two second rule,” so the stop was unreasonable. There was no proof that it was unsafe. And a good faith mistake of law doesn’t save it either. State v. Carter, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 56 (Dec. 19, 2025).*
Franks claim fails: “The undersigned finds that the modified affidavit, albeit far from ideal, is sufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit need not provide a great case for probable cause, and it need not be perfect.” United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262797 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 22, 2025).*
Defendant’s DNA was seized in 2009 and should have been purged, but it wasn’t. He’s later charged with another crime. A confirmatory test was run. The good faith exception applies to the DNA that wasn’t purged like it was supposed to be. [Doesn’t confirmation moot that?] State v. Miray, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 620 (Dec. 18, 2025).
Plaintiff fled a traffic stop after initially pulling over. That was probable cause for arrest. Parham v. Robles, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33043 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s FAC survives a motion to dismiss: “The FAC alleges that Henry and Schwering ‘violently’ detained decedent and applied a vascular neck restraint while decedent was in a prone position, and Bjornstad used body weight force on decedent. The FAC also alleges that Mr. Jaramillo ‘vomited profusely and appeared to have a seizure’ and lost consciousness, and that Defendants’ use of force caused Mr. Jaramillo’s death.” Est. of Jaramillo v. City of Spokane, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33044 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).*
“The fact that Klein expressed anger toward A.V. and moved some of her belongings outside does not establish that her residential status had ended. He did not finish removing her possessions, he permitted her inside, and her household items remained throughout the home. As noted in United States v. Wright, 838 F.3d 880, 886 (7th Cir. 2016), the end of a romantic relationship does not automatically terminate shared authority when the partner continues to access or use the property. That principle applies here.” State v. Klein, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1141 (Dec. 17, 2025) (unpublished).*
Even removing the Franks challenged material from the affidavit, without getting to the merits of the lack of probable cause, there still was probable cause. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261674 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 18, 2025).*
“The Defendant fails to satisfy the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing. I need not determine whether the challenged statements were made knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, because Dozier has failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that these statements are material to a determination of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261587 (D. Conn. Dec. 18, 2025).*
Posted inConsent, Franks doctrine|Comments Off on WI: “the end of a romantic relationship does not automatically terminate shared authority when the partner continues to access or use the property”
The officer’s touching a house outside keypad to illuminate it didn’t require an announcement before that. They had the code and were coming in, and they did announce. United States v. Broady, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262077 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2025). No case anywhere supports this:
Reason: Governments Are Pushing Digital IDs. Are You Ready To Be Tracked? by John Stossell (“Politicians push government IDs. In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, ‘You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.’ European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do. Spain’s prime minister promises ‘an end to anonymity’ on social media! Britain’s prime minister warns, ‘You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.’ Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing ‘who actually got a vaccination or not.’ Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs. The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, ‘Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.'”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Reason: Governments Are Pushing Digital IDs. Are You Ready To Be Tracked?
Defendant had a warrant for his arrest. He was seen by police, and he fled. When he was tackled to the ground and handcuffed, the officers rolled him over finding a gun in his waistband. It was a valid search incident. United States v. Brewer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259875 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2025).
Defendant signed a cell phone consent search form that authorized a complete search of the phone, and he provided the passcode. The search did not exceed the scope of his authorization. State v. Rodriguez, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9619 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Dec. 17, 2025).*
The identified informant provided reasonable suspicion. State v. Tower, 2025-Ohio-5593 (5th Dist. Dec. 15, 2025).*
“The question before this Court today is whether a police officer who conducts a Terry stop can seize the smartphone of a suspect without a warrant and hold it for four days before obtaining a warrant, where the suggested exigency of destruction of evidence is not supported by any particularized evidence as to the defendant from whom the property was seized. This Court is also called upon to answer whether the Government may obtain a warrant to search a cell phone based only on generalized allegations that criminals tend to carry their phones with them and have evidence on them, and whether the Government’s warrant for a cell phone can permit the search of all data created, without regard to the time the data was created or the likelihood of particular type of data to include evidence. This Court’s answer to all of these questions is an emphatic ‘no.’ The evidence obtained from the phone pursuant to the November 26, 2024 warrant is suppressed, as is any fruit of the poisonous tree.” United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259934 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025).
NPR: Live cameras are tracking faces in New Orleans. Who should control them? by Martin Kaste (“New Orleans, home of Bourbon Street revelry, has become the first American city known to have a live facial recognition network. How that came to be is a story of private initiative and political inaction, and may point to the future public safety uses of this surveillance technology. Police around the country routinely use facial recognition after a crime, to speed up the identification of suspects caught on camera. But live facial recognition, which can name and track a person moving around a city in real time, has been slower to catch on in the U.S. Aside from isolated experiments, police departments have shied away from the technology, fearing a backlash over privacy.”)
The officer’s handling defendant’s suitcase on a Greyhound Bus for five seconds to remove it from the bus, just as the driver or baggage handlers would, before asking him for consent was not unreasonable. Defendant validly consented to its search. [Not cited is Bond, so the bag wasn’t felt for its contents.] United States v. Clay, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32667 (8th Cir. Dec. 15, 2025).
There was probable cause for the warrant so the good faith exception doesn’t need to be decided. United States v. Wentz, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32403 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025).*
The First District Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction to remand to the trial court to consider late disclosed impeachment evidence that could have aided defendant’s suppression hearing. Thomson v. State, 2025 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 903 (Dec. 10, 2025).*
Defendant’s disagreements with the affidavit for warrant don’t show materiality for a Franks challenge. United States v. Francis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 255532 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2025).*
Merely having knowledge of prison strip searches doesn’t make that prison official potentially liable. Baltas v. Jones, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32676 (2d Cir. Dec. 15, 2025)*:
Posted inPrison and jail searches, Strip search|Comments Off on CA2: Merely having knowledge of prison strip searches doesn’t make that prison official potentially liable
CNS: North Carolina man asks Fourth Circuit to nix child porn flagged by Google algorithm by Steve Garrison (“A North Carolina man convicted of possessing child pornography asked the Fourth Circuit on Friday to toss out evidence that Google automatically collected from his private email account. Nico Lowers, of Raleigh, is serving an eight-year prison sentence after pleading guilty last year to transporting and possessing child pornography. Lowers argues on appeal the case was tainted by an improper search of images that Google obtained from his Google Drive and sent to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). The three-judge panel appeared at odds on the lawfulness of the search during Friday’s arguments, reflecting a larger divide among the appellate courts on the role of automated searches in criminal investigations.”).
Posted inComputer and cloud searches|Comments Off on CNS: North Carolina man asks Fourth Circuit to nix child porn flagged by Google algorithm
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing the state constitution in a federal criminal case. United States v. Powell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256220 (W.D. La. Dec. 10, 2025).
“Here, the affidavit detailed the information on which the officer relied, including his experience and knowledge relating to narcotics investigations, statements from confidential informants, and findings from law enforcement investigations corroborating much of the information provided. Considering the totality of information, the affidavit was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance on the warrant unreasonable, and the district court did not err in finding that the good faith exception applied.” United States v. Fitzpatrick, No. 24-4240, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32453 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025).*
There was no reasonable suspicion for defendant minor’s stop after seeing him on the street after a ShotSpotter report in the area. His body movements suggested he was hiding something and then he fled, apparently tossing a magazine. State v. Y.A., 2025 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 36 (Dec. 5, 2025).*
A short interaction in a high crime area in daytime wasn’t reasonable suspicion, even when the passenger and driver didn’t have the same story. United States v. Hawkins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 32455 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025):
Suspicious activity reports (SARs) don’t violate the Fourth Amendment under the third party doctrine. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc. v. Bessent, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 255738 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2025):
Police using a ruse to arrest defendant is legal in the Sixth Circuit. (Not necessarily in the Ninth, but we’re in the Sixth.) It also doesn’t “shock the conscious [sic, quoting a pleading].” United States v. Carmona, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256600 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 11, 2025).
Franks claim fails: “The Court does not find that the statements in Paragraph 8 establish a deliberate falsehood, a reckless disregard for the truth, or cast doubt on the affidavit’s showing of probable cause to search the residence. Rather, it seems to this Court that the statements accurately summarize Corporal Weitz’s knowledge, and, as such, defendant has not met his initial burden and does not merit a Franks hearing.” United States v. Moore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256316 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 11, 2025).*
The omitted information doesn’t vitiate probable cause. United States v. Lobor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256297 (D. Me. Dec. 11, 2025).*
A boilerplate motion to suppress cell phone records that wasn’t specific was followed up at trial with an objection to “call detail records” was not an objection to CSLI. Griffin v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9566 (Tex. App. – Dallas Dec. 12, 2025) (2-1).
Admission of defendant’s cell phone evidence wasn’t prejudicial enough to be reversible error even if it was illegally seized. Becton v. United States, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 399 (Dec. 11, 2025).*
Defendant didn’t file an affidavit of standing. Even if he had standing, he’d lose on the merits of the search for lack of standing because it wasn’t his car and he didn’t show authority to drive. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257736 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2025).*
When the government retained electronic evidence obtained from a lawyer under a warrant, concluded the investigation, and then, years later, searched the information again in a different investigation, the remedy here was order of immediate return to the lawyer and barring its use elsewhere. Richman v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256197 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 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.
