SCOTUS denies review of “the presence rule” for misdemeanor arrests

SCOTUS denied review of a case from the Eleventh Circuit on the in the presence rule for misdemeanor arrests from United States v. Gonzalez, 107 F.4th 1304 (11th Cir. 2024) because, noted by the statement of Sotomayor and Gorsuch, the issue is still alive, but this isn’t the case for it. Gonzalez v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 824 (Feb. 24, 2025), pdf starting at 50.

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUS denies review of “the presence rule” for misdemeanor arrests

CA11: The questions that extended the stop were for officer safety and thus reasonable

The questions here alleged to have prolonged the stop were primarily related to officer safety and weapons and not drugs. Therefore, they were reasonable. United States v. Green, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3856 (11th Cir. Feb. 20, 2025).

There was reasonable suspicion on the totality for continuing the stop. But the officer said “be safe” and walked back to the patrol car but turned around and came back and reengaged. The court finds this continuation was consensual. United States v. Murdoch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31382 (D. Kan. Feb. 20, 2025).* [Remember the Kansas two step?]

It’s not the search that caused harm to the victims you had pictures of; it’s your crime. “Appellant also asserts that the record fails to support the court’s [sentencing] finding that his conduct resulted in ‘great or unusual harm’ to the victim. Appellant instead claims that the State caused the harm by executing a search warrant that uncovered evidence that appellant had videotaped the victims. He thus argues that his sentence is contrary to law because his conduct did not cause ‘the harm contemplated by the statute.’ [¶] First, appellant’s assertion that the State caused the harm is devoid of merit. Appellant caused harm through his surreptitious videotaping of the victims.” State v. Grashel, 2025-Ohio-580 (4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2025).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA11: The questions that extended the stop were for officer safety and thus reasonable

NY3: Inventory doesn’t have to be everything, just meaningful things

The inventory papers and the body cam video show that the officer inventoried all the meaningful things in the vehicle, so it complied with policy and was reasonable. People v. Craddock, 2025 NY Slip Op 01016, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1041 (3d Dept. Feb. 20, 2025).

Plaintiff’s arrest was unjustified and the officers don’t get qualified immunity. Little v. City of Saginaw, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4085 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025).*

The officer’s credible testimony about his visual assessment of speed was justification for the stop. United States v. Clermont, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31380 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29978 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 19, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Inventory, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on NY3: Inventory doesn’t have to be everything, just meaningful things

TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

Defendant’s furtive movements supported exigency that he could attempt to erase things on his cell phone thus justifying its warrantless seizure. Igboji v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1021 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Feb. 20, 2025) (unpublished), on remand from 607 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) 2020), rev’d 666 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).

Defendant’s statement he disclaimed an interest in the car he was walking away from can be used to show his standing even though the government is barred from using it at trial. United States v. Cook, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31024 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2025).*

17 law enforcement officers and support personnel showed up to execute a child pornography warrant. Defendant and his family were removed from the house and put in police cars and told they were not under arrest. Still, it was custodial when defendant was questioned in the police car he couldn’t get out of. United States v. Galasso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31022 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2025).*

Posted in Cell phones, Custody, Emergency / exigency, Standing | Comments Off on TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

CA11: Refusal to cooperate in taking DNA by SW permitted adverse inference at trial

“The record here demonstrates that the district court did not plainly err by allowing the jury to draw an adverse inference of guilt from Gonzalez’s refusal to provide his DNA even though his counsel was not present. When the government requested Gonzalez’s DNA sample, it was not a critical stage in the criminal prosecution, and Gonzalez did not have a right to counsel.” United States v. Gonzalez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3986 (11th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025).

This inventory was reasonable. The officer abruptly changed his mind about the inventory, but it was because he realized that the car couldn’t be driven away. Holifield v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 1424 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 21, 2025).*

“During the [blood] draw, the defendant stated, ‘of all the times I’ve driven drunk, this is the time that I’m caught.’” State v. Martin, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 97 (Feb. 21, 2025).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Inventory | Comments Off on CA11: Refusal to cooperate in taking DNA by SW permitted adverse inference at trial

E.D.Okla.: Handling a gun in a parking lot wasn’t RS in an open carry state

The caller’s report to the police that defendant was handling a gun in an apartment building’s parking lot didn’t state a crime in an open carry state. The detention was without consent or reasonable suspicion. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30949 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 21, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Handling a gun in a parking lot wasn’t RS in an open carry state

CA8: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into Airbnb in sex trafficking investigation

Officers had exigent circumstances for an entry into an Airbnb that was being used for sex trafficking a minor when the targets were constantly on the move from place to place. The FBI was on defendant’s tail with the minor, and he was moving from Airbnb to Airbnb under pseudonyms. They entered one Airbnb without a warrant when the landlord went in first, but didn’t find them. When they finally found defendant and the minor, entry without a warrant was reasonable. United States v. Black, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4294 (8th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on CA8: Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry into Airbnb in sex trafficking investigation

D.Utah: Example of how the CI’s story was supported in detail

Defendant challenges the CI’s statements as insufficient to show probable cause, but it fails. This is an example of how this court found the CI’s detail sufficient. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30335 (D. Utah Feb. 19, 2025)*:

Continue reading
Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Utah: Example of how the CI’s story was supported in detail

This blog is 22 years old today

See the post from the 20th Anniversary.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on This blog is 22 years old today

CA2: Officers using iPhone flashlight and camera to see through car window’s tinting did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Officers used their iPhone flashlight and camera to see through car window’s tinting, and this did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. Tinting the windows doesn’t create an objective expectation of privacy. United States v. Poller, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3932 (2d Cir. Feb. 20, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA2: Officers using iPhone flashlight and camera to see through car window’s tinting did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy.

MS: Police cell phone search as extensive as prior private search was reasonable

The warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone was the same as a private search that already occurred, and it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Knight v. State, 2025 Miss. LEXIS 51 (Feb. 20, 2025).

An NOLA officer seeing an apparent gun on his person in the French Quarter was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30118 (E.D. La. Feb. 20, 2025).*

Officers coming to a residence to serve legal papers could enter the driveway and look in the cars where they saw a sleeping person. The person in the car didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen. A gun case reveals the contents. United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30069 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2025).*

Posted in Curtilage, Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MS: Police cell phone search as extensive as prior private search was reasonable

OR: Cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular to prevent a general rummaging

For this cell phone search, “As explained above, however, the first and fourth search categories are sufficiently specific, and defendant conceded below that the third category is sufficiently specific. Further, the sixth category’s command to search for location information—as circumscribed by the limitations included in those categories, such as specific phone numbers, dates, and types of information—is sufficiently specific and does not authorize ‘undue rummaging.’ See Mansor II, 363 Ore. at 220 (without specificity, digital searches ‘raise the possibility of computer search warrants … sanctioning the undue rummaging that the particularity requirement was enacted to preclude’ …).” State v. Meyers, 338 Or. App. 59 (Feb. 20, 2025).

Sovereign citizen’s § 1983 case was essentially an appeal of state traffic convictions and was barred by Heck. Justice v. Moreau, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29551 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2025).*

The use of force question here is fact bound and not proper for summary judgment. Monroy v. Perez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3875 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2025).*

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Particularity | Comments Off on OR: Cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular to prevent a general rummaging

W.D.Ky.: Police battering ram to door and shots fired inside is a seizure

In the Brianna Taylor civil rights prosecution, the battering ram to the door of the apartment with shots being fired was a seizure of the occupants. United States v. Hankison, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29347 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2025).*

Defendant didn’t get to see all the redacted warrant affidavit because it named the CI. On the whole it showed probable cause. People v. Etienne, 2025 NY Slip Op 00979 (2d Dept. Feb. 19, 2025).*

Defendant had standing to challenge a tracking order on a vehicle he’d been driving, didn’t own, and parked it and another drove off. Under Byrd, one doesn’t have to own a vehicle to have standing. As to the tracking order, it was issued with probable cause. As to defendant’s cell phone, it was seized with exigency and put into airplane mode. He conflates seizure and search of the phone needing a warrant. United States v. Hutchins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28949 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 27, 2025).*

Petitioner’s Franks 2255 claim fails because it was already litigated. United States v. Aviles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28912 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2025).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Seizure, Standing, Warrant papers | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Police battering ram to door and shots fired inside is a seizure

“A Fourth Amendment Press Clause,” in National Security, Journalism, and Law in an Age of Information Warfare, Ethics, National Security, and the Rule of Law (2024)

Hannah Bloch-Wehba, “A Fourth Amendment Press Clause,” in Marc Ambinder, Jennifer R. Henrichsen, and Connie Rosati (eds), National Security, Journalism, and Law in an Age of Information Warfare, Ethics, National Security, and the Rule of Law (New York, 2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Feb. 2025) at 43-60. Abstract:

Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on “A Fourth Amendment Press Clause,” in National Security, Journalism, and Law in an Age of Information Warfare, Ethics, National Security, and the Rule of Law (2024)

CA4: Withheld discovery information about CIs in SW affidavit justified setting aside guilty plea

Defendant’s guilty plea is set aside as a due process as a result of the government withholding information about a second CI in the search warrant papers where the first couldn’t identify him. When the government made a later 775-page document dump, the pertinent information was handwritten in a few margins, and it even eluded the government’s attorneys for a while, who should have just confessed error when it came up. United States v. Garrett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3769 (4th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025) (2-1, decided less than four weeks after submission of a case docketed in 2022). This summary doesn’t do it justice. It’s actually quite stout:

Continue reading
Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA4: Withheld discovery information about CIs in SW affidavit justified setting aside guilty plea

CA10: Cross-gender prison strip search of transgender woman stated claim

A cross-gender jail strip search of a transgender woman with gender dysphoria stated a claim. Griffith v. El Paso Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3734 (10th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025).

Defendant was involved in a head-on crash driving on the wrong side of the road. His bloodshot watery eyes supported probable cause for BAC. State v. Brain, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 165 (Feb. 19, 2025).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop based on defendant’s nervousness, the wad of cash, his lie about his whereabouts, and information from the ongoing narcotics investigation. Their threat to get a warrant was justified and not coercive. Commonwealth v. Metz, 2025 PA Super 37 (Feb. 19, 2025).*

The protective sweep here was unjustified by any reasonable belief there was a justification for it. Trial court suppression order affirmed. El Pueblo de P.R. v. Rondón, 2025 PR App. LEXIS 206 (Jan. 27, 2025).*

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Probable cause, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Strip search | Comments Off on CA10: Cross-gender prison strip search of transgender woman stated claim

CA7: Four-day delay in getting released wasn’t a 4A, 8A, or 14A violation

Plaintiff pled to state charges and was to be released by the Illinois DOC. But it was a holiday weekend, and he spent four days in jail. This was neither a Fourth, Eighth, nor Fourteenth Amendment violation. Peoples v. Cook Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3668 (7th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).

That the CI participated in supervised controlled buys with defendant is powerful corroboration, as the Second Circuit has recognized. United States v. Kelly, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28189 (D. Conn. Feb. 18, 2025).*

Under NJ law, it’s not required that the state allege more than an ounce of marijuana was involved since unregulated delivery of any amount is a crime. State v. Gomez, 2025 N.J. Super. LEXIS 14 (Feb. 19, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA7: Four-day delay in getting released wasn’t a 4A, 8A, or 14A violation

S.D.N.Y.: Sublessee of apartment had standing

Sublessee of an apartment had standing to challenge its search. This can’t be compared to burglars or squatters. United States v. Ephron, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28794 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2025).

Defendant wasn’t seized during his encounter with the police at a car wash where he was asked for his ID and it was returned to him. He wasn’t blocked in other otherwise restrained. State v. Shipman, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 62 (Feb. 19, 2025).*

Plaintiff inmate sued over his legal mail being opened, searched, and maybe even seized outside his presence. Caselaw supports the claim, but it’s not fully clear here. The motion to dismiss is denied for now so the issues can be fleshed out, particularly qualified immunity. Warner v. Chambers-Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28844 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 15, 2025).*

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Seizure, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Sublessee of apartment had standing

CA6: Def’s will found on his person on arrest was validly seized

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging a will defendant wrote saying he’d kill his wife then himself found on his person at the time of arrest. At least inevitable discovery applied because it would have been found in booking inventory. MacKenzie v. Morrison, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3699 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).*

Nexus was shown to defendant’s cell phone because the CI said that it was used to communicate with co-conspirators. United States v. Kelly, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28189 (D. Conn. Feb. 18, 2025).*

“Probable cause ‘is not a high bar,’ see Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 350, 338 (2014), and it has been met here. This is all the Constitution requires. The black Jaguar was tied to drug trafficking, and as far as the agents knew at the time of his arrest, Derrick Baldwin (and not Jarman Hargrove) owned it. Defense counsel’s suggestion notwithstanding, agents had sufficient probable cause to detain Mr. Baldwin, even if they didn’t witness him engage in suspicious hand-to-hand transactions at various gas stations or find his fingerprints on items recovered from the trash pull.” United States v. Baldwin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28382 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2025).*

Posted in Inevitable discovery, Probable cause, Search incident | Comments Off on CA6: Def’s will found on his person on arrest was validly seized

OH11: Furtive movements in and out of car gave RS to prolong stop

Defendant was stopped for overtinted windows and his furtive movements in and out of the car gave reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. State v. Reuschling, 2025-Ohio-516 (11th Dist. Feb. 18, 2025).

The statute excluding evidence unlawfully seized also is intended to restore noncontraband property. The state could appeal the latter, too. Here, it was Delta-8 THC gummies. State v. Islam, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 31 (Feb. 18, 2025).

There was reasonable suspicion to extend this traffic stop. Reece v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 57 (Feb. 18, 2025).*

Cause was shown for an administrative search warrant for rental property safety issue. “[I]t is well settled that a municipality may obtain a warrant for administrative inspections of properties, and probable cause may be based upon a showing that reasonable legislative standards for conducting an inspection are satisfied. Said standards were satisfied in this case.” Dep’t of Dev. Servs. for the City of N. Canton Ohio v. CF Homes LLC, 2025-Ohio-522 (5th Dist. Feb. 18, 2025).*

Posted in Administrative search, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on OH11: Furtive movements in and out of car gave RS to prolong stop