A trespasser has no reasonable expectation of privacy when on the property trespassed upon. Here, there were numerous signs for the TX DOT saying “no trespassing.” United States v. Parkerson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26220 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025).
As a part of the reasonable suspicion calculation for a driving offense, the officer can consider the incidence of DUIs that happen along this stretch of road down from a couple of bars when erratic driving happens after midnight. Parker v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7755 (Tex. App. Oct. 8, 2025).*
“Defendant’s Franks hearing motion alleges that the search warrant affidavits failed to demonstrate probable cause and support issuance of the search warrants in question. … Defendant explains, ‘certain omissions in the contested search warrants further show that there was not probable cause for either search warrant to be issued.’ Id. Specifically, Defendant contends that the affidavits lacked information about the confidential informants’ backgrounds. … Defendant does not point to any specific affidavit or search warrant. See id. Defendant also does not provide any exhibits or affidavits to support his assertion. …” Denied. United States v. Busbee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199344 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 8, 2025).*
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on 404 Media: A Texas Cop Searched License Plate Cameras Nationwide for a Woman Who Got an Abortion
Defendant didn’t properly preserve his Fourth Amendment claim for appeal from a conditional plea. United States v. Smurphat, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26002 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2025).
“A search warrant limited to a single dwelling apartment is sufficiently particular on its face ….” People v. Andino, 2025 NY Slip Op 05478, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5597 (1st Dept. Oct. 7, 2025).
Whether another’s cell phone was illegally searched in another state is irrelevant to this criminal case. United States v. Twitty, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197636 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion to prolong this traffic stop. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25926 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025).*
Posted inBorder search, Cell phones|Comments Off on ATL: Immigration Attorney Critical Of ICE Receives Temporary Restraining Order Preventing Search Of His Phone
FedEx opening a package taken from the conveyor belt was a private search. Harris v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198271 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2025).*
Defendant’s stop for no LPN was reasonable despite possible pretext. “Based on the credible testimony of Officer Tucker, the Court concludes he had probable cause to believe that Mr. Walker had committed a traffic violation, and consequently, the stop of the motorcycle was constitutionally permissible even if the primary reason for the stop was related to some other investigation.” United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198218 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 4, 2025).*
Defendant became a suspect in 2020 for cold cases from 1984. A trash search produced a discarded belt that was DNA tested, seemingly matching him to the 1984 crimes. A confirmatory test was done by warrant. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his discarded trash. State v. Sharpe, 2025 Conn. LEXIS 202 (Oct. 7, 2025) (concurrence and dissent).
A pre-warrant protective sweep was reasonable, and nothing from it ended up in the warrant application. United States v. Paulino, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198662 (D. Guam Oct. 3, 2025).*
The record supports the district court’s conclusion defendant’s girlfriend consented to police entry that found him hiding inside. United States v. Coleman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26065 (7th Cir. Oct. 7, 2025).*
Petitioner got a CoA from the district court which was overlooked here. He gets to appeal his Fourth Amendment claim. Wood v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26043 (6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025).*
The affidavit for warrant omitted pertinent details about the CI’s credibility and apparent baggage, but it doesn’t matter: “And yet, the pertinent facts provided by Hample were corroborated by other information, including text messages, phone records, location tracking, and surveillance. This corroborating information stands independent of Hample’s credibility or lack thereof. Because of that, including the omitted information would not have altered the ultimate probable cause determination. For these reasons, there is no need to hold a Franks hearing, and I recommend denying defendant’s motion.” United States v. Conley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196744 (W.D. Wis. Sep. 8, 2025), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196380 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 2, 2025).
“[W]hether it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe English violated Toledo’s chronic-nuisance law is unresolvable on this record.” Summary judgment denied. English v. Kral, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25860 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025).*
“At the time Defendants were detained, there was reasonable suspicion to infer that they could be involved in drug trafficking at Las Picuas. … This decision is informed by the totality of the circumstances, namely Las Picuas’ isolated location and status as a known drug trafficking spot not frequented by the public, that morning’s poor sea conditions, Defendants’ odd behavior on the way to and at Las Picuas, one officer having heard gunshots in the area, and dispatch’s report of suspected drug trafficking at Las Picuas approximately thirty minutes before the officers’ arrival. …” United States v. Reyes-Pimentel, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196793 (D.P.R. Oct. 3, 2025).*
Prisons can copy legal mail in presence of the inmate to guard against contraband coming in disguised as legal mail. Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195443 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2025). [Based on a BOP call about an envelope, that happened to me just a week ago.]
The record supports that defendant abandoned his bag in a Best Buy store when buying a phone with cash by leaving the bag in a chair which the police exercised control over after a warrant surfaced on him. State v. Pardo, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 687 (Oct. 1, 2025).* [I don’t agree. No intent to abandon here. The worse thing defendant did was not speak up when the officer asked to search which then becomes a consent issue, not abandonment.]
In the overall scheme of things and the full investigation, omitting the CI’s credibility didn’t affect the probable cause determination. “Whatever the reason, failing to include the credibility information was wrong, and law enforcement could have and should have done better. But this failure does not alter the probable cause determination. Law enforcement sufficiently corroborated Hample’s story and included enough independent evidence of drug activity at the Brandie Road address to render the omission of facts pertaining to Hample’s credibility immaterial under the totality of the circumstances. Because defendant cannot make the requisite substantial preliminary showing, a Franks hearing is not warranted.” United States v. Conley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196744 (W.D. Wis. Sep. 8, 2025).*
The smell of marijuana alone is no longer probable cause but the good faith exception applies here. Williams v. State, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7375 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 1, 2025) (en banc):
With legalization of marijuana, the smell of marijuana is no longer probable cause in itself. “While the smell of marijuana remains a relevant factor under the totality of the circumstances to a probable-cause analysis, it is no longer sufficient, standing alone, to provide the required probable cause to search a vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception.” State v. Gray, 2025-Ohio-4607 (1st Dist. Oct. 3, 2025).
Defendant here satisfied his Franks burden of showing a lack of probable cause after the false information was excised. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195302 (E.D. La. Oct. 2, 2025).*
Defendant moved to suppress photographs seized from his cell phone. The government doesn’t resist. Granted. United States v. Hoppe, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195251 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 2, 2025).*
Petitioner’s search claim was nearly identical to a prior claim and barred as a successor. In re Killen, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25851 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025).*
Warrantless search of a cell phone to access plaintiff’s Uber history stated a Fourth Amendment claim. Etere v. Nassau Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25753 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025).
Even if defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search warrant for a lack of particularity, there’s no prejudice here based on all the evidence the state had that defendant was involved in the homicide. Evans v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 219 (Sep. 30, 2025).*
The passenger in this vehicle doesn’t have standing, and the evidence was in plain view. United States v. Nunez-Santana, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196260 (D.P.R. Oct. 1, 2025).*
A Nest camera video obtained from Google by warrant was properly authenticated. Campbell v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 839 (Oct. 2, 2025).*
“In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove in a civil action under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The division also holds that the trial court properly limited expert testimony and properly excluded evidence of a gun found during the protective sweep. Finally, the division holds that the trial court’s award of attorney fees [$130,987] and costs to the plaintiff was reasonable, and it remands the case for the trial court to determine the plaintiff’s reasonable appellate attorney fees.”–Syllabus. Mosley v. Daves, 2025 COA 80 (Oct. 2, 2025).
“Based on a totality of the circumstances, Officer Ruffin had probable cause to believe Marion’s flight from police was indicative of criminal activity and that the car, which police already knew contained an assault-styled rifle, likely contained evidence of that criminal activity. In sum, the search of Marion’s car did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it fell within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” United States v. Marion, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196334 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2025).*
Standing doesn’t have to be decided, and both defendants likely have it. On the merits, the stop and detention were with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Thengkamp, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196367 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 29, 2025).*
The state securities department subpoenaed petitioner’s bank records. He has no privacy interest in them under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Peabody v. State Office of the Sec’y of State Sec. Div., 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 328 (Oct. 3, 2025).
“Even if the officer is ultimately incorrect about whether the traffic infraction occurred, a mistaken but reasonable belief does not violate the Fourth Amendment ….” The stop here was reasonable. Thompson v. Wilshire, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196482 (S.D. W. Va. Sep. 5, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion for stopping defendants on a SEPTA bus after a robbery where they matched the description down to one’s specific pants. United States v. Humphrey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196470 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2025).*
The officer doesn’t have to be “mathematically correct” that there was one car length per 10 mph for following too close. The question is reasonableness. United States v. Larin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196625 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2025).*
There is no Fourth Amendment protection in one’s subscriber information provided to a third-party internet service provider and its link to an IP address. State v. Brown, 2025 Haw. LEXIS 268 (Sep. 30, 2025).*
The state contends defendant had no standing in the hotel room being searched, just because he was found in it. Doesn’t matter here: either no standing or renter’s consent justifies the search. Bryant v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 7659 (Tex. App. – Dallas Oct. 2, 2025).*
Exigent circumstances justified this entry. “Here, Brandi’s sister called 911 to report that Jackson was beating Brandi and that she could not breathe. When officers arrived at the couple’s home, they could hear screaming, and a bystander told them that ‘he’ was beating her. Because the door was open, both Vinson and Sanchez could also see the couple actively arguing.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 25703 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025).*
Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not filing a post-trial Franks motion. Everett v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195631 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2025).*
WSJ: Lawmakers From Both Sides Pressed Pentagon on Legal Basis for Drug Boat Strikes by Lara Seligman, Alexander Ward, and Siobhan Hughes (“Senators on both sides of the aisle pressed the Pentagon’s top lawyer in a closed-door meeting to provide a better legal explanation for striking alleged Latin American drug boats in the Caribbean, according to people with knowledge of the matter. In a classified Senate Armed Services Committee briefing Wednesday, the Pentagon general counsel, Earl Matthews, detailed the legal basis for the military’s attacks ordered by President Trump. Matthews repeatedly referred to Trump’s designation of some Latin American drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which he said granted the Defense Department unilateral authority to use military force against them, some of the people said. Matthews refused to provide a written justification for the strikes, which legal experts say is necessary for transparency and accountability.”)
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on If a shooting is a seizure, what about blowing up a boat with people in it?
“Plaintiff’s only purported basis for a Fourth Amendment claim is a vague assertion that ‘handcuff/restraints = false report.’ (Compl. at 6). Liberally construed, this appears to suggest that Plaintiff allegedly was seized without sufficient cause. In the prison context, however, Plaintiff’s temporary placement in hand and leg restraints did not rise to a Fourth Amendment violation.” Stalling v. Castellano, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195651 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025).
In this case, officers got a warrant for a business’s Nest videos to show a crime. Campbell v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 839 (Oct. 2, 2025).*
Defendant’s patdown during this traffic stop was by consent. State v. Mack, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 651 (Sep. 29, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t get access to the unredacted search warrant papers that could reveal the CI’s identity. People v. Bleyden, 2025 NY Slip Op 05197 (1st Dept. Sep. 30, 2025).*
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on Substack: Breaking: Trump Used AI to Scan U.S. Generals’ Faces for Loyalty — and to Root Out Whistleblowers
404 Media: ICE to Buy Tool that Tracks Locations of Hundreds of Millions of Phones Every Day by Joseph Cox (“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has bought access to a surveillance tool that is updated every day with billions of pieces of location data from hundreds of millions of mobile phones, according to ICE documents reviewed by 404 Media. The documents explicitly show that ICE is choosing this product over others offered by the contractor’s competitors because it gives ICE essentially an ‘all-in-one’ tool for searching both masses of location data and information taken from social media. The documents also show that ICE is planning to once again use location data remotely harvested from peoples’ smartphones after previously saying it had stopped the practice.”) If ICE gets it, why can’t the DEA, ATF, or FBI?
"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.
