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).*
LAT: L.A. County moves to limit license plate tracking by Phoebe Huss & Khari Johnson (”Drivers in Los Angeles County have a powerful new privacy advocate after the L.A. County Board of Supervisors pushed to restrict how their license plates are scanned by law enforcement. The board recently voted to ask the Sheriff’s Department to more stringently regulate its use of the license plate data it collects through high-tech camera systems mounted on patrol cars and above roads. The measure it approved cited reporting from CalMatters that roughly a dozen police and sheriff’s departments throughout Southern California shared such data with federal immigration agencies.”)
The forensic search of a cell phone can occur anytime between seizure and trial and still be timely. State v. Lowry, 2025 La. LEXIS 1481 (La. Oct. 25, 2025).
2255 ineffective assistance of counsel challenge for Franks violation fails for no offer of proof. Martinez v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210120 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2025).*
The challenge to the search warrant fails. There was probable cause, the good faith exception would apply, and it was particular. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209992 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 11, 2025).*
The officer here had reasonable suspicion defendant was trespassing or stealing or both when stopped. United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209875 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 17, 2025).*
Defendant argues that the search of his car was void under Gant because he was handcuffed outside it. There was, however, probable cause for a vehicle search. United States v. Phillips, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209424 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 3, 2025).*
Nexus shown to phone: “Appellant argues the affidavits submitted in support of the search of his cell phone are insufficiently particularized and contain only broad language about the tendency of people to store information on their phone. We disagree. Although the affidavits contain some language that is arguably ‘boilerplate,’ they also contain specific facts tying the phone to the offenses being investigated. … [¶] The affidavits state that appellant was arrested and charged with stalking based on allegations that he repeatedly sent unwanted and threatening messages to Balderas.” Esparza v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8242 (Tex. App. – Dallas Oct. 24, 2025).*
No affidavit or standing means no standing: “Here, defendant has failed to meet his burden to establish a privacy interest in the subject cell phone. Because defendant has made no showing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the seized device or cellular data contained therein, he does not have standing to bring this motion.” United States v. Crule, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210281 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2025).*
BBC: Armed police handcuff teen after AI mistakes [Doritos chip bag] for gun in US by Liv McMahon & Imran Rahman-Jones (“A US teenager was handcuffed by armed police after an artificial intelligence (AI) system mistakenly said he was carrying a gun – when really he was holding a packet of crisps. ‘Police showed up, like eight cop cars, and then they all came out with guns pointed at me talking about getting on the ground,’ 16-year-old Baltimore pupil Taki Allen told local outlet WMAR-2 News. Baltimore County Police Department said their officers ‘responded appropriately and proportionally based on the information provided at the time’. It said the AI alert was sent to human reviewers who found no threat – but the principal missed this and contacted the school’s safety team, who ultimately called the police.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Baltimore: AI identifies bag of Doritos in school as a gun
Imagine: Marketplace: What it’s like to have an AI wearable record everything you say by Matt Levin (“A new generation of wearable AI gadgets can record, transcribe and analyze your every interaction … There’s no widespread adoption of these always-on AI wearables just yet. But if you work in AI, chances are you’ve probably seen them. Although it’s more distressing if you know they’re probably there but you can’t see them. ‘I just always have my guard up,’ said Allie Miller, an AI consultant for Fortune 500 companies. ‘I find myself looking around a lot more. I find myself looking at people’s wrists or necks or ears. I find myself tracking where the rest of their team members are. It’s not a great position to be in.’ At a recent AI conference, Miller found out another speaker secretly recorded what she thought was a private conversation without her consent. In most states, that’s actually legal. The covert recorder wasn’t one of the newest generations of AI wearables. But Miller sees the possibility of a near future where everyone needs to assume they’re being recorded at all times.”)
Now imagine that it’s obtained by search warrant or subpoena, or abandoned, or uploaded to the cloud.
Posted inPrivileges|Comments Off on Marketplace: What it’s like to have an AI wearable record everything you say
NPR: As strikes on alleged drug boats grow, so do questions about their legality and goal by Franco Ordoñez & Ryan Lucas (“The Trump administration has yet to provide public evidence to support its assertions that the individuals on the boats were cartel members and that the vessels were transporting drugs, raising concerns about the legality of the strikes and the real goals of the White House campaign. Prior to the strikes in the Pacific, the U.S. military had been ramping up the number of troops and naval ships in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Venezuela. International law experts say it’s an unprecedented amount of military hardware to confront suspected drug boats, which has fueled questions about whether the operation is about countering narcotics trafficking or instead toppling Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.”)
Survivors of a boat strike earlier this week were sent home, not arrested for drug smuggling.
Posted inExcessive force|Comments Off on NPR: As strikes on alleged drug boats grow, so do questions about their legality and goal
Netflix contracted with defendant to make a series. When it fell through after paying him $44M, they believed they’d been defrauded. The search warrant for what had been completed of the series was potential evidence and properly sought under the warrant. United States v. Rinsch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208335 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025).*
The government satisfied inevitable discovery here. By the time of the protective sweep they had probable cause and were going to get a warrant. United States v. Gober, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208607 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 23, 2025).*
The affidavit for search warrant here failed to show probable cause under established case law, and the motion to suppress was properly granted. [The good faith exception is not discussed.] State v. Nagle, 2025 Minn. LEXIS 579 (Oct. 22, 2025).*
Defendant was stopped as a suspect in a kidnapping, and his phones were validly seized. The government showed probable cause as to one phone but not the other, and even the good faith exception doesn’t save it. One phone not suppressed, one is. United States v. Chowdhury, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208381 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2025).*
What shows the basis for seeking a search warrant is not inadmissible “hearsay.” Williams v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8224 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Oct. 23, 2025).
“But the government has grounds to search a known drug dealer’s residence when the dealer is ‘engaged in continual and ongoing operations typically involving large amounts of drugs.’ … In these circumstances, a judge can ‘infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug trafficking.’ … A warrant affidavit fortifies this inference when it provides additional evidence connecting the dealer’s operations to the residence. … Bradley was a known drug dealer engaged in continuous and ongoing trafficking operations.” United States v. Bradley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 27517, (6th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025).*
The affidavit for this tracking warrant was based on probable cause, even if the CI’s story is discounted. United States v. Barber, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208640 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2025).*
by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"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]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!” ---Pepé Le Pew
"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.
