GA sustains a geofence warrant linking def to a murder

Georgia sustains a geofence warrant linking defendant to a murder. Jones v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 39 (Mar. 4, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in geofence | Comments Off on GA sustains a geofence warrant linking def to a murder

E.D.Cal.: 27-page SW affidavit was sufficient and didn’t have to include every detail

The affidavit for warrant was 27 pages long and it omitted a lot of detail, but that’s not enough to show a Franks violation. Every detail doesn’t have to be included, and the omissions here don’t undermine the probable cause or aren’t material. “[T]he Fourth Amendment does not require an ‘encyclopedic’ explanation of probable cause.” United States v. Loloee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37758 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2025)*:

Continue reading
Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: 27-page SW affidavit was sufficient and didn’t have to include every detail

CA5: False arrest based on suppressed and manipulated information stated claim

Plaintiff sufficiently pled a false arrest claim to survive dismissal. He claimed the officer arrested without probable cause, directed a witness who to pick out of a photo lineup, and ignored and suppressed exculpatory evidence that undermined probable cause. In addition, the fact a grand jury indicted plaintiff doesn’t protect the officer. Green v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off on CA5: False arrest based on suppressed and manipulated information stated claim

KS: In responding to SW, out-of-state social media company’s authentication statement substantially complied with state law

In responding to a search warrant request, the social media company provided Rule 901 authentication for that state “under penalty of perjury,” but under the law of the United States not the State of Kansas. It was under penalty of perjury and that’s substantial compliance with state law. State v. Kemp, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 10 (Feb. 28, 2025).

Probable cause a traffic violation occurred is justification for this stop even if it was pretextual for drugs. United States v. Burgman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36064 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2025).*

The district court credited the officers that there was a traffic violation supporting the stop, and the videos did not contradict it. United States v. Hunter, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4743 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Pretext, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on KS: In responding to SW, out-of-state social media company’s authentication statement substantially complied with state law

CA6: Facebook picture of stolen lamp gave nexus for SW

An attempt to sell an antique lamp on Facebook provided sufficient nexus to defendant’s house for a search warrant. United States v. Truett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4764 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025).*

The district court saw the video of the stop and heard the officers’ testimony which it credited. That gets deference on appeal. United States v. Hunter, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4743 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025).*

Despite the video not being completely clear, the district court found probable cause for his arrest and detention for his suspicion of carrying a gun. He did raise a factual question as to delay of responding to his medical need. Robinson v. City of Knoxville, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4745 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Nexus, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA6: Facebook picture of stolen lamp gave nexus for SW

CA6: Franks argument subsumed within PC argument is treated as waived

Defendant’s Franks argument was skeletal and subsumed within his lack of probable cause argument. It is treated as waived. “And we consider arguments forfeited where ‘[i]ssues [are] adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation.’” United States v. Truett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4764 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025).*

“Syed has not made a showing of any false statements or omissions knowingly or recklessly made and is therefore not entitled to a Franks hearing. At most, he alleges the change in the Government’s theory of the case from the complaint to the Indictment might ‘amount[] to recklessness.’ (Id.) However, Syed offers only rhetorical questions and conjecture as support and has not pointed to any specific statements or omissions.” United States v. Syed, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35269 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2025).*

Motion to suppress denied for not even attempting to show standing. United States v. Ruiz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36050 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Standing, Waiver | Comments Off on CA6: Franks argument subsumed within PC argument is treated as waived

OH1: For probation search, anonymous tip and knowledge of probationer was RS

While anonymous tips alone aren’t reasonable suspicion, in a probation search, an anonymous tip coupled with the PO’s knowledge of the probationer was. State v. Currie, 2025-Ohio-670 (1st Dist. Feb. 28, 2025).*

Defendant’s search claim was not shown to be newly discovered, and, even if it was, it wasn’t exculpatory for Brady. State v. Brand, 2025-Ohio-669 (1st Dist. Feb. 28, 2025).*

“The warrant was amply supported by probable cause that evidence of illegal firearms possession was likely to be found in the defendant’s residence or vehicles. It is a reasonable inference that the defendant illegally possessed firearms at his residence after he was observed with a prohibited firearm, identified as a black semi-automatic handgun, and seen entering his vehicle with the illegal weapon and days later parking the vehicle at his residence.” United States v. Willis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35256 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 27, 2025).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on OH1: For probation search, anonymous tip and knowledge of probationer was RS

CA8: Walkway to front door where mailbox was wasn’t protected curtilage

Defendant’s front yard wasn’t curtilage where there was a walkway to the mailbox by the door. Blood spatter was visible. The officers then went through a fence based on exigency. The observations supported a warrant. United States v. McGhee, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4680 (8th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025).

Defendant’s post-conviction petition was denied without a hearing. On the Fourth Amendment claim, it was a rehash of the same claim on appeal, and denied. State v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-668 (5th Dist. Feb. 20, 2025).*

The search warrants here were supported by probable cause based on the statements of the reliable citizen informants and the supporting facts. The search warrants were particular in describing the items to be seized and the limitations on the search. And, even if the initial seizure of the cell phone was unlawful, the independent source doctrine applied because the search warrants were valid and not influenced by any prior unlawful action. State v. Tyson, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 342 (Feb. 25, 2025).*

Posted in Curtilage, Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA8: Walkway to front door where mailbox was wasn’t protected curtilage

W.D.Tex.: Body camera shows stop was unreasonably prolonged

“After considering all evidence in context, including Officer Gonzalez’s testimony, her body camera video, and the rest of the record, the Court concludes that she unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop. Even when considering her experience and all facts from an objective officer’s standpoint, the facts known to her at that moment did not create reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. And even if they did, her actions were still not reasonably related to those suspicions.” She also embarked on an immigration investigation. Search suppressed. Identity evidence and statements of passengers are not. United States v. Rios, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35945 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2025).*

On the R&R, the government objected to the finding defendant had standing, but the defense showing showed it. The defense argument there was no showing of probable cause fails. United States v. Burgin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34909 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2025).*

Nexus was shown to defendant’s house from drug couriers leaving there to drug deals and back. United States v. Olmos, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34601 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 25, 2025).*

There appears to be probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest, but whether or not that’s true, the Fourth Amendment claim wasn’t clearly established. Wieber v. Porter, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025).*

Posted in Nexus, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Body camera shows stop was unreasonably prolonged

NE: PBT unnecessary for PC if it’s apparent def under influence

The officer didn’t need a PBT to have probable cause for defendant’s DUI arrest. His observation of defendant was enough. State v. Porter, 33 Neb. App. 453 (Feb. 25, 2025).*

Inevitable discovery applied. The community caretaking function allowed seizure of a weapon until the inventory. State v. Lane, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 108 (Feb. 28, 2025).*

In denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, one of the panel writes that the government’s assertion of a circuit conflict isn’t. The panel required notice of FISA surveillance which is different than disclosure. United States v. Moalin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4643 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025).* The panel opinion is United States v. Moalin, 973 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2020). Yes, 2020.

Coram nobis petitioner had notice of his Fourth Amendment claim 15 years ago at the time of his plea, so it’s denied as untimely. United States v. Wright, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4722 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2025).*

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, FISA, Inevitable discovery, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on NE: PBT unnecessary for PC if it’s apparent def under influence

The automobile exception is 100 today

The automobile exception is 100 today: Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

The offense date: December 15, 1921. The place: Pike 16, 16 miles east of Grand Rapids, Michigan, which I surmise is now the route of I-96 from Detroit, based on a 1920s highway map. Bootleggers got their stuff in Detroit from Canada and brought it west. So, driving west four hours from Detroit was reasonable suspicion or probable cause in 1921? Not today, it’s not.

The car: an Oldsmobile Roadster, likely like this: a 1920 Oldsmobile Roadster:

(courtesy classiccars.com)

Carroll came at a time when there was almost no SCOTUS discussion of what the Fourth Amendment meant. Once there, it’s not going anywhere. Judge made law.* Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” means whatever one wants it to mean at the time. Read Carroll if you have time. It’s quaint, and a little scary, by today’s standards. They just made it up as they were going along.

_________
*As was the exclusionary rule in Mapp v. Ohio. See Treatise § 7.04 (the exclusionary rule wasn’t even briefed by the parties).

Posted in Automobile exception | Comments Off on The automobile exception is 100 today

C.D.Cal.: “4A privileges and immunities” are two claims, not one, and both denied here

Plaintiff’s case claimed Fourth Amendment privileges and immunities, but that’s two claims because privileges and immunities is under Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1 but it doesn’t state a claim under either. Gay v. Sheriff of L.A. Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33043 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025).*

Also holding nexus can be circumstantial: “While the nexus analysis has a ‘fact-intensive nature,’ circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish that there is a fair probability the place to be searched contains evidence of a crime. … Those circumstance may arise when an individual accessed a property immediately before or after a drug transaction, or where investigators can connect narcotics to a specific property.” United States v. Franco, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33271 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2025).*

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate. United States v. Winters, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33217 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 25, 2025).*

Reasonable suspicion isn’t required to run an LPN. Vigil v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1221 (Tex. App. – Dallas Feb. 26, 2025) (unpublished).*

Posted in Nexus, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: “4A privileges and immunities” are two claims, not one, and both denied here

NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

Defendant’s motion to suppress based on an apparent misdescription of the place to be searched wasn’t resolved below, so the case is remanded for further development. People v. Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1170 (1st Dept. Feb. 27, 2025). (The trial was May 18, 2017, nearly 8 years ago. “Justice delayed is justice denied,”* or something like that.)

Defendant already lost his Franks challenge, but the court gives him a chance to attack other alleged factual misrepresentations, but none of them are material. United States v. Banks, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35117 (D. Me. Feb. 27, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion on the totality about text messages for a meet up for a drug drop even though the vehicle didn’t match because the officer testified that sometimes they don’t describe the vehicle accurately on purpose. “Similarly to Baggett, supra, the totality of the circumstances in this case and the rational inferences that can be drawn therefrom show that Pledger had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver of the white truck was the person who was hoping to find her in the park.” Towe v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 77 (Feb. 25, 2025).*

______
* 1837, per Wikipedia entry, n.5. At least Mr. Trulove got probation.

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

GA: Shouting and arguing inside is not exigency

Yelling and arguing from inside a home is not exigent circumstances. As to a second entry, the defendant’s statements about an injury were tainted as fruit of the initial unlawful entry. Refusal to consent to re-entry did not constitute a new crime justifying arrest, as consent is not required for lawful police action. State v. Almeida, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 86 (Feb. 27, 2025).

There was reasonable suspicion to extend defendant’s stop when he was found parked on the side of the road slumped over an open container. State v. Benson, 2025-Ohio-609 (4th Dist. Feb. 19, 2025).*

“The issue raised by Defendant in the context of the Motion to Suppress, of whether the investigatory stop was lawful (which the Court has ruled that it was), is not implicated as the basis for his arrest, which was for an outstanding warrant.” United States v. Hong-Long, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32094 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2025).*

The use of valid administrative subpoenas to gather information before a warrant wasn’t an abuse of power by the government. United States v. Ruiz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32117 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2025).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on GA: Shouting and arguing inside is not exigency

CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix

CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix by Michael J.Z. Mannheimer:

Continue reading
Posted in Excessive force, Seizure | Comments Off on CrimProf Blog: A Hidden Seizure Issue in Barnes v. Felix

Reason: Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car

Reason: Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car by Emma Camp (“A Denver SWAT team burst into the wrong family’s apartment, holding several women and children at gunpoint before locking them in a police car for hours. Despite multiple signs that the cops had raided the wrong apartment, they still searched it, forced out its terrified occupants, and—according to a lawsuit filed this week—attempted to cover up their misconduct.”)

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on Reason: Colorado SWAT Team Raids Wrong Apartment, Locks Innocent Family in Police Car

CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

“When Dean responded to the ‘open structure call’ he was performing a community caretaking function. Community caretaking functions are ‘totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.’ … Here, even if the officers suspected criminal activity such as a burglary, the police were not searching Jefferson’s property or home to find evidence of a crime committed by its residents. After all, one cannot burglarize, or criminally trespass on, his own home. Instead, the police were exercising a community caretaking function—checking to make sure Jefferson and the other residents of the home were safe. Because Dean was exercising a community caretaking function, it is not clearly established that Dean’s actions were an unreasonable search.” Bakutis v. Dean, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4373 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025).

The state courts ruled against petitioner on his Franks challenge, and he doesn’t show that it was an unreasonable application of law on habeas. Delapena v. Sec’y, Dep’t. of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31931 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search because it was valid as an inventory in any event. Abreau-Perez v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31976 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2025).*

Posted in Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

S.D.Miss.: Because CA5 prohibits broad geofence warrants, cell tower dump warrant unreasonable

USMJ concludes the Fifth Circuit’s geofence warrant case means a cell tower dump warrant is unreasonable. In re Four Applications for Search Warrants Seeking Info. Associated with Particular Cellular Towers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32995 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 21, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Cell phones, geofence | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Because CA5 prohibits broad geofence warrants, cell tower dump warrant unreasonable

M.D.Tenn.: State court’s order permitting entry past a privacy fence to serve civil process made entry reasonable

A state court order that gave officers permission to enter past plaintiff’s privacy fence to serve him with a summons was sufficient to grant them at least qualified immunity or was reasonable for the entry alleged to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Chorazghiazad v. Gatlin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32426 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 24, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonableness | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: State court’s order permitting entry past a privacy fence to serve civil process made entry reasonable

Reason: Detroit Police Wrongly Arrested Woman After Facial Recognition Tech Misidentified Her as Shooting Culprit

Reason: Detroit Police Wrongly Arrested Woman After Facial Recognition Tech Misidentified Her as Shooting Culprit by Emma Camp (“Last year, Detroit police wrongly arrested LaDonna Crutchfield after facial recognition software incorrectly identified her as the culprit of a shooting, according to a lawsuit filed on February 21. While police did not even have a warrant for Crutchfield’s arrest, they handcuffed, detained, and jailed her anyway. The officers had conducted no investigation, relying fully on a facial recognition database. Police released Crutchfield only when it became obvious that they had arrested the wrong person. Crutchfield’s suit argues that her wrongful arrest was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology, Video surveillance | Comments Off on Reason: Detroit Police Wrongly Arrested Woman After Facial Recognition Tech Misidentified Her as Shooting Culprit