The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the officer who prepared an electronic BAC warrant in the patrol car was not sworn to tell the truth based on the body cam. That was a fatal defect. State v. Chavez, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8031 (Tex. App. – Austin Oct. 17, 2025).
When defendant’s DL was run, it was revealed he was a registered sex offender not allowed to be around children and there was an 8- or 9-year-old girl in the back seat. That was reasonable suspicion. State v. Navarro, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8033 (Tex. App. – Austin Oct. 17, 2025).*
“The appellant also summarily argues that the trial court erred by limiting the appellant’s ability to establish a Franks violation. We disagree. [¶] The appellant has failed to provide citations to statute, case law, rules of evidence, or learned treatise from this or any other jurisdiction to support her argument. The appellant even fails to present a standard of review.” The issue is waived. State v. Rush, 2025-Ohio-4760 (5th Dist. Oct. 15, 2025).*
There is no requirement in the Sixth Circuit for a cell phone search protocol to be specified in the search warrant. United States v. Lanham, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202782 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2025).
There was probable cause defendant was running an illegal marijuana grow based on what equipment had been acquired and huge electricity use, among other things. State v. Wong, 2025 Ore. App. LEXIS 1700 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
Officers called a magistrate about getting a search warrant and the magistrate said to get consent. The consent obtained was valid, and was supported by a plain view. Robinson v. State, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 396 (Oct. 14, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality here, and some of the information the officer relied upon was two months old. State v. Porter, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 892 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
There is no standing in a contraband cell phone in prison. United States v. Pouncy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202490 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2025).
The trial court properly limited the time frame of this warrant when an overbreadth challenge was made. State v. Demons, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7776 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2025).*
Officers found defendant shot, and they cut his pants looking for gunshot wounds while EMTs were on their way. Drugs fell out of the pocket. This was all based on exigent circumstances. United States v. Beverly, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202872 (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2025).*
Driving with lights off and stopping in an intersection and spinning tires was reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Walls, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 690 (Oct. 14, 2025).*
United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203218 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2025) involved prosecution of a police officer for perjury during a Franks hearing:
Search incident to an arrest for an outstanding warrant was valid. There was no duty to check first to see if it was possible the warrant had been recalled or quashed. United States v. Lockridge, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203313 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 15, 2025).
“The minor inconsistencies in witness statements in the affidavit also do not offset the probable cause established throughout the affidavit. Under the totality of the circumstances approach used to evaluate warrant affidavits, those inconsistencies should not be considered in a vacuum, but in relation to the entirety of the facts presented in the affidavit.” United States v. Stiff, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203259 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2025).*
The trial objection to social media materials was relevance. In a motion for new trial it was lack of probable cause. No plain error, and it was largely cumulative. Taylor v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 231 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
The trash pull here was corroborated by other information and that provided probable cause. United States v. Stewart, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202492 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2025).*
A frisk that went inside defendant’s pants was unreasonable. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202764 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 20, 2025).
When a stop revealed a holster when the defendant got out of the vehicle, a further intrusion was justified to look for the gun. People v. Mitchell, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 8264 (Oct. 14, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t contest the stop, just its extension, which was with reasonable suspicion of being under the influence. State v. Brown, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 898 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t clearly ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for his cell phone with a catch-all phrase. “ And we are aware of no precedent–and Moss cites none–supporting the notion that an unlimited date range, either alone or combined with a catch-all clause that is limited like the one here, is enough to nudge an otherwise valid warrant outside the bounds of the particularity requirement.” Moss v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 226 (Oct. 15, 2025).*
Accessing the ALPR system to look at license plate location is not a search requiring a warrant. Commonwealth v. Church, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 627 (Oct. 14, 2025) (unpublished):
Under the Puerto Rico Constitution, unlawfully seized evidence is inadmissible, and this includes forfeiture cases. Cruz v. Commonwealth 2025 PR App. LEXIS 2293 (Sept. 23, 2025).
The probable cause question here doesn’t have to be decided. Suffice it to say that there’s enough that it’s in good faith. United States v. Bridges, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201510 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2025).*
CoA denied. “Jones has not made the requisite showing. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. We do not consider his newly raised claims that defense counsel’s purported ineffectiveness constitutes ‘cause’ to excuse his procedurally defaulted claims, that his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim at trial ….” Jones v. Mississippi, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26557 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).*
Plaintiffs state enough of a continued seizure in a traffic stop to get to a jury. Rodriguez had been decided before this happened. Caton v. Salamon, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26546 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).*
“Assuming, without deciding, that the Cellphone Warrant was overbroad due to lack of a timeframe limitation, this finding would not mean that all evidence seized under the cellphone warrant is subject to suppression. The proper remedy is to suppress only the evidence that was generated during time periods for which probable cause was not established. A finding of temporal overbreadth ‘does not require suppression of all of the items seized pursuant to the warrant[. Rather,] the proper approach to this dilemma is to sever the infirm portion of the search warrant from the remainder which passes constitutional muster.’ …” United States v. Bryson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201150 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 22, 2025).
This search warrant “set forth ample indicia of probable cause.” United States v. Busbee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200311 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*
“Multiple factors coalesced here to provide Agent Grant with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing: Garza-Alaniz was driving from an area of Texas near the Mexico border known as a source of illegal drugs all the way to New York City without a place to stay or any specific plans for what to do during his purported week-long vacation with his girlfriend; he did not have a driver’s license (and neither did his girlfriend); he was travelling with a common drug smuggling vessel; he initially was more nervous than the average motorist stopped by police; and he remained so notwithstanding Agent Grant’s efforts to put him at ease.” [The government’s other factors aren’t considered.] United States v. Garza-Alaniz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200292 (N.D. Ala. Sep. 4, 2025).*
The affidavit for this search warrant was so lacking in probable cause that it could not be relied upon, even for good faith. All it showed was the defendant was someone who was associated with an apartment and might have kept stuff there. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200355 (D. Minn. Sep. 5, 2025), adopted 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199032 (D. Minn. Oct. 8, 2025):
The warrant said without the blanks filled in: “‘Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this ___ day of August 2024. Time ___.’ The warrant also contained a partially pre-filled date line which read ‘Dated this ___ day of August 2024. Time ___.’” It was actually October. If the dates could be figured out, these were typos that could be overlooked. State v. Sadler, 2025-Ohio-4665 (5th Dist. Oct. 9, 2025).
The police here got a warrant for conversations recorded by a PlayStation. State v. Deal, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 484 (Oct. 10, 2025).*
One doesn’t get discovery to attempt to show a Franks violation. “In this case Defendant seeks additional discovery because he argues that, without it, he otherwise ‘cannot meaningfully challenge the validity of the warrant or the truthfulness of the affidavit.’ … But hope that the recordings might contain material that Defendant can use to challenge the validity or truthfulness of the warrant is not enough to compel disclosure. Sanders, 106 F.4th at 474-75.” United States v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200436 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Staleness|Comments Off on OH5: Typo on SW date could be overlooked if it can be otherwise figured out
“Based upon our review of the record and the applicable authority, we conclude that Officer Crist calling out ‘hey, fellas’ to Stoney and Holmes did not amount to a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, as it did not amount to a forceful authoritative command that would cause a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave, and thus, at that point, the interaction was nothing more than a mere encounter. … Instead, Stoney and Holmes were seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when they fled and the officers began to pursue them.” Commonwealth v. Stoney, 2025 PA Super 232 (Oct. 10, 2025).
A controlled buy at defendant’s property is nexus to it. United States v. Gross, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26446 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).
Police executing a search warrant looking for defendant’s cell phone didn’t find him there. They got his wife to call him to come home with it. It was searched after he got there, and the searching officers were still in there processing the premises when he showed up with it. Leopard v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 450 (Oct. 10, 2025).*
Putting meth in a public trash can was treated as abandonment, not hiding it for later. United States v. Denham, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201311 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2025).
Use of a cell phone to deposit stolen checks supported seizure of the phone. United States v. Odom, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201154 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2025).
Defendant’s conclusory allegations about the CI don’t state grounds for relief. United States v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200436 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*
There wasn’t reasonable suspicion for the police entry at first, but then it was all by consent. United States v. Vilneus, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200359 (D.R.I. Oct. 7, 2025).*
Despite defendant having some cognitive difficulties, the court concludes his lies to the officer before consenting still supported consent. The ability to lie shows knowledge. United States v. Lumbert, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201199 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2025):
This affidavit for search warrant didn’t show nexus, but it wasn’t so lacking that the good faith exception didn’t apply. Some information was provided, and it was more than in cases where it was lacking. United States v. Diaz, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26100 (8th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025).
2254 petitioner had his opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and did. He doesn’t get to do it again in 2254. Gardiner v. Bauman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199467 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2025).*
A traffic stop in a high crime area after midnight led to an equivocal response whether defendant was armed. That led to further questions. United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199300 (M.D. Ala. Sep. 15, 2025).*
The state showed by sufficient evidence that a prior unlawful protective sweep did not taint a subsequent search. State v. Maciel-Salcedo, 344 Or. App. 75 (Oct. 8, 2025).*
Reason: The Constitution Does Not Allow the President To Unilaterally Blow Suspected Drug Smugglers to Smithereens by Sen. Rand Paul (“Somewhere off the coast of Venezuela, a speedboat with 11 people on board is blown to smithereens. Vice President J.D. Vance announces that ‘killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.’ When challenged that killing citizens without due process is a war crime, the vice president responded that he ‘didn’t give a shit.’ Sometimes in fits of anger, loud voices will say they don’t care about niceties such as due process—they just want to kill bad guys. For a brief moment, all of us may share that anger and may even embrace revenge or retribution. But over 20,000 people are murdered in the U.S. each year, and yet somehow we find a way to a dispassionate dispensation of justice that includes legal representation for the accused and jury trial.”)
NYTimes: Colombia’s President Says Boat Bombed by U.S. Was Carrying Colombians by Julie Turkewitz & Robert Jimison (“The Trump administration has said that it is attacking boats and killing their occupants because they are smuggling drugs from Venezuela to the United States.”)
Posted inExcessive force, Seizure|Comments Off on Reason: The Constitution Does Not Allow the President To Unilaterally Blow Suspected Drug Smugglers to Smithereens
It would take about four hours to get a BAC search warrant, and the totality of circumstances supported a warrantless blood draw before the BAC dissipated too much more. State v. Sanchez, 344 Or. App. 85 (Oct. 8, 2025):
While the smell of cannabis is no longer justification for a vehicle search, searches prior to the date the law changed are valid under the good faith exception. Williams v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7538 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 8, 2025).
“The evidence submitted at the evidentiary hearing established two independent bases to justify the stop and subsequent detention. First, the car was caught traveling 15 miles per hour over the speed limit; and second, there was reasonable suspicion Murray was trafficking drugs—reasonable suspicion that justified the initial stop and that quickly ripened into probable cause once the drug dog alerted positively in under three minutes.” United States v. Murray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199111 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 29, 2025).*
For search incident, “the test here is an objective one. What the officers actually thought or believed is irrelevant. The question is whether the facts show that an offender could access the cooler here, not whether the officers actually believed or feared he would. Thus, defendant’s own conclusions that Investigator Soppe and Captain Steil must not have been in fear for their safety or certain that they would find evidence inside the cooler are unavailing following this Court’s de novo view of the law.” United States v. Parker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198997 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 8, 2025).*
Reason: Treasury Department Surveillance at the Southern Border Faces Fourth Amendment Challenges by Toslin Akintola (“In March, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a geographic targeting order (GTO) that quietly turned MSBs along the U.S.-Mexico border into surveillance hubs. The order required MSBs in specific ZIP codes along the Texas and California borders to file a currency transaction report (CTR) for any cash transaction over $200 … In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, [Institute for Justice] argued that the GTO violates the Fourth Amendment and imposes undue burdens on businesses. The complaint also claims FinCEN violated the Administrative Procedure Act by arbitrarily selecting ZIP codes and failing to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures.”)
Posted inThird Party Doctrine|Comments Off on Reason: Treasury Department Surveillance at the Southern Border Faces Fourth Amendment Challenges
"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.
