In re Application for AT&T Non-Disclosure Order, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218179 (D.N.M. Nov. 4, 2025), is denied for lack of certification from a supervising official as required by statute.
Defendant was subject to a probation search waiver, and there was also probable cause for a warrant. United States v. German, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215173 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2025).*
Officers did not violate clearly established law and their force escalated as force was escalated against them. This happened inside plaintiff’s home, and she had in-home video which was corroborated by the bodycams of the officers. Johnson v. Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29049 (5th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025).*
Ohio rules clearly provide a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate search and seizure claims, so habeas relief for that claim is denied. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218066 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2025).*
A welfare check that is objectively reasonable isn’t unreasonable because of a mixed motive to arrest if necessary. State v. Leiby, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 8339 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 5, 2025).
The police had (plenty) of probable cause to stop defendant for a homicide. The car likely was the one involved and it was his. Shuler v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 909 (Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. He simply doesn’t show a material falsity. United States v. McCullough, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215232 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendants are accused of a cocaine conspiracy of trafficking from South America to Europe through the US. The government obtained information from European counties via MLAT, and whatever assistance they gave to help gather information didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Gogic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215187 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2025).*
The government’s motion to seal search warrant materials from a year ago because the investigation is ongoing is denied for lack of a showing of justification. 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):
“Defendant Halima Salman is charged with receiving military type training from a foreign terrorist organization in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339D.” The government maintains a database of who is involved in military activities overseas: NMEC. Defendant’s husband’s cell phone was seized in Syria and the contents uploaded; pictures, social media posts, etc. There’s no challenge to that seizure. Searching the database did not violate the Fourth Amendment. There was no standing in his phone, and there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in that database. United States v. Salman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218278 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025).
Officer’s seeing a hand rolled cigarette during a traffic stop for window tint was reasonable suspicion. State v. Perry, 2025-Ohio-4945 (5th Dist. Oct. 28, 2025).*
There is no doubt that there was probable cause for defendant’s detention, handcuffing, and frisk. Farden v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213214 (D.N.M. Oct. 29, 2025).*
CoA on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim of failing to properly litigate a Franks motion. The government supplemented the record below to clarify ambiguities. Ward v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28591 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).*
“Applying this deference here, we conclude that the state judge properly found probable cause based on the informant’s claims that Howard stored illegal drugs at his apartment. The officer’s affidavit adequately established the informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge. First, the affidavit showed the informant’s reliability in two ways. It described the informant’s ‘past performance’ by explaining that the informant had ‘always’ given reliable information and had completed ‘umerous’ controlled buys. … It then discussed the ‘independent investigative work’ that corroborated the informant’s statements.” United States v. Howard, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28388 (6th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s challenge to his parole arrest and search is barred by Heck. Jones v. Toth, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213537 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2025).*
The affidavit showed a substantial basis for probable cause for defendant’s CSLI to connect him to a robbery. Frazier v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8552 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) Nov. 6, 2025).*
Defendants are accused to a cocaine conspiracy of trafficking from South America to Europe through the US. The government obtained information from European counties via MLAT, and whatever assistance they gave to help gather information didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Gogic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215187 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendant was subject to a probation search waiver, and there was also probable cause for a warrant. United States v. German, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215173 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 31, 2025).*
The police had (plenty) of probable cause to stop defendant for a homicide. The car likely was the one involved and it was his. Shuler v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 909 (Oct. 31, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. He simply doesn’t show a material falsity. United States v. McCullough, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215232 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025).*
The affidavit for warrant refers to a video of an occurrence, but, without seeing the video, the USMJ can’t decide probable cause for the warrant. Otherwise, it’s ratifying the officer’s conclusions, mentioning being a “rubber stamp.” In re Search of the Subject Phone, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215447 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2025).
There was probable cause: “Here, the search-warrant application with the accompanying affidavit and the search warrant were admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing. The affidavit detailed the call to appellant asking him to bring methamphetamine to Dollar General, that appellant was carrying methamphetamine when arrested, that appellant admitted he had drug paraphernalia in the RV, that appellant admitted selling methamphetamine because he had lost his job, and that a cell phone was seized from appellant when arrested.” Kelly v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 519 (Oct. 29, 2025).*
A 72 hour property restriction in prison is not a Fourth Amendment violation. White v. Payne, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213382 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2025).*
Reason: Man Accused of Soliciting Teen Girl Walks Because of Federal Overreach by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“In its zeal to ratchet up more sex trafficking prosecutions, the Department of Justice (DOJ) overreached—and it backfired. Now, a seeming sexual predator may escape conviction because the feds couldn’t just leave local crime to local authorities. The DOJ tried to invoke jurisdiction because the potential predator—an adult man who tried to pay his friend’s teen daughter for sex on multiple occasions—used money, used a car that was made out of state, and drove on a road. No dice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit said in an October 2 decision. Allowing this would put us on the path to letting Congress usurp police power retained by the states and federalize virtually any crime.”)
The client was detained on conviction, and the client fired me for being ineffective. But the trial judge set aside the verdict after about a month based on my motion for judgment of acquittal and released the client. United States v. Arif, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93295 (E.D. Ark. May 24, 2024), aff’d 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25582 (8th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025). Another lawyer handled the appeal.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Reason: Man Accused of Soliciting Teen Girl Walks Because of Federal Overreach
Jared Fishman & John J. Choi, High Risk, Low Return: The Case Against Non-Public-Safety Traffic Stops, 40 Criminal Justice No. 3 at 35 (Fall 2025) (not online yet, print only)
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on ABA: High Risk, Low Return: The Case Against Non-Public-Safety Traffic Stops
The “in the presence” of the officer for misdemeanor arrests is not a part of the common law, citing Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 995 (7th Cir. 2000). It is by statute or rule in various places. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210476 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 16, 2025).
The CI here provided photographs of the interior of defendant’s house for the police. The defense claim that photographs can easily be altered nowadays isn’t supported by anything other than speculation. But, the question is probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212725 (D. Alaska Oct. 27, 2025).
Despite defendant’s suppressed statement, there was probable cause for the warrant for his place for clothes worn at the time of the murder. Commonwealth v. Almeida, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 546 (Oct. 27, 2025).*
A search warrant to photograph a tattoo was reasonable. Here, a sex assault assailant was described as having a particular tattoo, and defendant was the suspect. They found a matching tattoo. Grier v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 484 (Oct. 27, 2025).
“A show of authority alone, as noted, does not constitute a seizure. An individual must submit to it. Teixera answered at least one of Officer Lee’s questions and momentarily held his hands up after being ordered to do so. But less than 15 seconds after the officers pulled up next to him, Teixera fled. His temporary acquiescence did not constitute a submission to authority. … Teixera was not seized until the officers, after pursuit, subdued him on Erie Avenue.” United States v. Teixera, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210630 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2025).*
Plaintiff sued over police entering their apartment instead of the real target downstairs. The search warrant showed probable cause for the premises. They were there ten minutes and left. The claim was properly dismissed. Medina v. Stevens, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28053 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2025).*
On the totality, defendant’s stop was without reasonable suspicion. Only after he was handcuffed did an officer run the LPN finding a warrant. The government fails on inevitable discovery here. United States v. Warner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210974 (D.N.M. Oct. 27, 2025). (Caution: I see this one being appealed and the government likely winning. Is it reasonable to run the LPN at their convenience if they would anyway? I suspect that’s what the Tenth Circuit would say.)
The stop for speeding was reasonable, and the officer developed reasonable suspicion that defendant was likely under the influence of meth and maybe had some in the car. The dog sniff was, therefore, reasonable. United States v. Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211477 (D. Mont. Oct. 27, 2025).*
“Defendants are charged with various offenses relating to fraud, immigration, money laundering, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (‘FARA’). Defendants have since the outset inquired whether this case implicates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (‘FISA’) and search warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (‘FISC’). The Government has given, and continues to give, an unqualified denial in answer to that question. Unsatisfied, defendants move to compel the Government to disclose the legal authority under which certain unproduced classified materials were obtained. For the reasons below, defendants’ motion is denied.” United States v. Sun, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211419 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025).*
“Plaintiff complains of cell searches that are unscheduled or more frequent than she believes they should be. Such a claim does not state a constitutional violation. Even assuming that TDCJ policy dictates the frequency of searches, additional searches are not unconstitutional.” They aren’t shown to be harassing. Wilbert v. Abbott, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211143 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2025).
2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim barred by Stone. His attempt to relitigate it is construed as a successor petition and barred. Johnson v. Patton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27900 (10th Cir. Oct. 24, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion for this stop based on two traffic violations, then the smell of marijuana from the car was apparent. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210350 (D. Kan. Oct. 24, 2025).*
Plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim for seizure and destruction of his property without warning even though it was in a public place. Day v. L.A. Dep’t of Sanitation, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211547 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2025).*
A private party issuing subpoenas in a civil case is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. Rodney v. TransUnion LLC., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211570 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2025).
This Walmart store’s asset protection person was considered a reliable source to the police on a report of shoplifting. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209526 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 24, 2025).*
2254 death petitioner has two underlying cases. In the first, Stone v. Powell barred his Fourth Amendment claim. It has no relation to the second. Johnson v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209462 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2025).*
Appellant disputes whether he was under arrest when the search incident occurred. The officer testified to the grand jury and at trial he was. That settles it. State v. Howard, 2025 W. Va. LEXIS 382 (Oct. 24, 2025).*
Defendant was not denied confrontation of the CI who took photographs of his property used to get the search warrant. When the state offered them at trial, defendant successfully objected, so there was nothing to confront. State v. McCurdy, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 510 (Oct. 22, 2025).
Defendant challenges his wiretap evidence because multiple warrants have different footers although the contents are otherwise the same. That does not prove a fraud on the court. United States v. Tran, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209817 (E.D. La. Oct. 24, 2025).*
The protective sweep of defendant’s car for weapons was justified by the offense under investigation and defendant’s actions in refusing to stay away from the car. United States v. Cook, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209841 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 24, 2025).*
This 2254 includes a Fourth Amendment, but it’s all untimely and dismissed. Smith v. Payne, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209507 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 24, 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.
