The ping of defendant’s cell phone to find him when a 13-year-old girl went missing was based on exigency under state statute. Brooks v. State, 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 19 (Jan. 31, 2025).
All the factors supported reasonable suspicion: CI tip, flight, high-crime area, other evasive conduct. United States v. Rodgers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17258 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2025).*
While recognizing that staleness in child pornography cases can have an nearly unlimited lifespan, “the Court is mindful that there is some limit on the bounds of evidence not becoming stale, even in the child pornography context, it finds this case does not cross the line.” There was probable cause and the good faith exception applies. United States v. Scherer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17475 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2025).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an LPN from being checked. United States v. Winters, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17401 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 31, 2025).*
Defendant satisfied his burden showing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress his cell phone search. People v. Conley, 2025 NY Slip Op 00597 (4th Dept. Jan. 31, 2025).*
The order suppressing the search warrant for lack of probable cause is affirmed. The trial court faulted the chain of custody of the result of the trash search. People v. Scullin, 2025 NY Slip Op 00559 (4th Dept. Jan. 31, 2025).*
Defendant’s presence in a room with drugs two years before the search in question didn’t prove his knowledge here. People v. Henderson, 2025 NY Slip Op 00537 (4th Dept. Jan. 31, 2025).*
The totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the domestic violence call, appellant’s armed presence near the scene, his rapid movement towards the officers while armed, and the short timeframe, made the officers’ use of deadly force objectively reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer. Officers need not wait for a suspect to point a gun before using deadly force if they reasonably perceive a threat of severe harm. Holland v. Cheatham Cty., 2025 Tenn. App. LEXIS 28 (Jan. 28, 2025).
Petitioner’s successor petition on ineffective assistance of counsel is denied. That’s not proper grounds. In re Davis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2197 (11th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025).*
“Here, it is uncontroverted that Mitchell abandoned his bicycle, together with the attached brown satchel and its contents, before Deputy Sams was able to catch and physically seize him. … Furthermore, although Mitchell later admitted to deputies his ownership of the items in his jacket, he conspicuously refused to speak up or answer any questions about the satchel. … In other words, when offered the opportunity to reassert his ownership in the previously abandoned brown satchel and its contents, Mitchell remained mum.” United States v. Mitchell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16316 (W.D. La. Jan. 13, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15339 (W.D. La. Jan. 28, 2025).*
Defendant voluntarily disclosed his cell phone passcode to the officers when the officer said he’d get a warrant for it. State v. Harris, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 5 (Jan. 31, 2025):
Posted inCell phones, Consent, Voluntariness|Comments Off on KS: Def voluntarily disclosed his cell phone passcode to the officers when the officer said he’d get a warrant
“The record is devoid of evidence to support the conclusion that Detective Uhrig’s decision to impound Smith’s car was reasonable under the circumstances.” The inventory depending on the legality of the impoundment. Reversed. State v. Smith, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 8 (Jan. 30, 2025).
The affidavit for search warrant for defendant’s phone actually lacked probable cause, but the trial court found the good faith exception applied. On appeal, that finding was not against the preponderance of the evidence. Vasquez v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 65 (Feb. 5, 2025).* (The conviction was reversed on other grounds.)
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, and thus evidence obtained from Carter’s real-time cell site location information should not be suppressed, because law enforcement officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the federal Stored Communications Act, which explicitly permitted this. State v. Carter, 2025 S.C. LEXIS 14 (Jan. 29, 2025).*
Posted inGood faith exception, Inventory|Comments Off on ID: State completely failed to support justification for inventory
While the officer in charge of the DL roadblock (highway safety) essentially admitted it was for general crime control (see Edmund v. City of Indianapolis), the court goes with the DUI arrest being valid. The officer “was the most inexperienced law enforcement officer for the Town of Puckett. That’s not his fault. That’s just the nature of what it is. He started in January of 2023. He’s a part-time worker. He does other work primarily. This is a part-time job for him.” Kendrick v. State, 2025 Miss. LEXIS 23 (Jan. 30, 2025). This is reminiscent of the Barney Fife exception to the Fourth Amendment. Update: techdirt: Mississippi’s Top Court Says Rights Violations Are OK If Cops Don’t Know How To Do Their Jobs by Tim Cushing
On a turn signal violation: “… the question is not whether Moore was affected by Defendant’s turn; the question is whether Moore had probable cause to believe that he may have been affected. Moore was the only vehicle traveling in the area. He was traveling directly behind Defendant. Moore did not need to turn his vehicle or stop abruptly — or stop at all — due to Defendant’s failure to use a turn signal.” United States v. Bailey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15485 (N.D. W.Va. Jan. 29, 2025).*
The body cam video shows defendant consented to the search of his vehicle and didn’t seek to limit it in any way. State v. Warren, 2025-Ohio-256 (7th Dist. Jan. 28, 2025).*
No 2254 CoA for defendant’s Fourth Amendment litigated in state court on plain error review. Youngblood v. Corrigan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2076 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2025).*
Posted inIssue preclusion, Probable cause, Roadblocks|Comments Off on MS: Admitted “general crime control” roadblock still upheld based on part-time officer’s inexperience
The initial detention and exterior inspection of the parcel sent to defendant did not implicate his Fourth Amendment rights because it occurred within the guaranteed delivery window. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of the parcel given to a mail carrier. His only possessory interest was in the timely delivery of the parcel, which was not infringed during the initial detention. Then, officers obtained a search warrant and had reasonable suspicion to further detain the parcel after discovering methamphetamine within the delivery window. United States v. Ali-White, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2112 (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2025).*
The affirmation of counsel doesn’t satisfy the Second Circuit’s rule of a standing affidavit from the defendant. United States v. Rivera-Valentin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16236 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15131 (W.D. N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025).*
The search of defendant’s car was justified by the smell of marijuana and the passenger’s consent to look for his keys. State v. Falcon, 33 Neb. App. 331 (Jan. 28, 2025).*
State prosecutors aren’t necessarily obliged to give over information on federal officers present at a state search considering they have no control over them and their testimony may be hard fought via Touhy letters and they may have nothing additional to add. People v. Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 25019, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 409 (Erie Co. Jan. 28, 2025).
Where a motion to suppress would not have succeeded, defense counsel can be ineffective for not moving to suppress. McGrier v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238619 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 17, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13915 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective on his parole search question. “Fortson cannot establish either prong of the Strickland standard because had prior counsel made this argument at the hearing, it would have failed.” United States v. Fortson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15520 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2025).*
Posted inIneffective assistance, Motion to suppress|Comments Off on NY Erie Co.: State prosecutors have no control over federal officers involved in state search for discovery purposes
Where the trial court denied the pretrial motion to suppress, cross-examination of the officer about the legality of the search was properly denied on objection by the state as potentially misleading to the jury. Damon v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 50, 2025 Ark. App. LEXIS 59 (Jan. 29, 2025).
Informant hearsay was extensively corroborated, so plaintiff’s suit against the search with the warrant fails. Annappareddy v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1863 (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).*
Ancient Roman statue was seized from a NYC art gallery by the Manhattan DA’s office getting a warrant for its return to Italy. Italy is immune, and the DA gets qualified immunity. The gallery bought it for $150,000. Safani Gallery, Inc. v. Italian Republic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14665 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025).*
Defendant shows no possessory interest in a gun seized from a car he was a passenger in and has no standing. United States v. Webber, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14706 (W.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Putting defendant’s cell phone into airplane mode wasn’t a search. The name “Red” was seen on the screen. There was independent probable cause for the cell phone warrant. United States v. Hudson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14952 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 10, 2025).
This was a search warrant for documentary evidence not mentioning firearms, but the police came upon firearms subject to plain view and could seize them. United States v. King, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15070 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2025).*
“‘It is well established that a police seizure and inventory is not dependent for its validity upon the absolute necessity for the police to take charge of property to preserve it.’” Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the inventory because it was valid. Fowler v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 20 (Jan. 28, 2025).*
When the trial court sustains a search on two grounds and only one is appealed, the decision will be affirmed. State v. Alexander, 2025-Ohio-236 (4th Dist. Jan. 23, 2025).
In an animal seizure case, state law requires a post-seizure administrative hearing. Bakos v. Roach, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 39 (3d Dist. Jan. 29, 2025).*
The affidavit could have provided more detail about the CI, but it still cleared the bar for probable cause. United States v. Guzman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Plaintiff had his truck stolen, and he reported it. He recovered the truck but the same LPN was on it and still in the system because he didn’t tell them. The stop for being in a stolen truck was reasonable. Cook v. Boss, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1966 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Michigan v. Long on protective sweeps of vehicles when a weapon is reasonably feared was not overruled by Gant. State v. Howard, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 151 (Jan. 28, 2025).
The protective sweep would have been invalid but for valid consent by the person in control. Commonwealth v. Brinkley, 2025 PA Super 24 (Jan. 28, 2025).*
This is a NYC housing dispute that includes a Fourth Amendment claim. The Fourth Amendment claim seems to be real stretch here, and, in any event, it can be adjudicated in state court. Therefore, Younger applies. 216 E. 29th St. Tr. v. City of N.Y., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15267 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025).*
When evaluating an officer’s use of force in responding to a domestic and road rage call involving a weapon, it is considered a serious crime. The use of force here was reasonable. Holland v. Cheatham Cty., 2025 Tenn. App. LEXIS 28 (Jan. 28, 2025).*
“Even if reasonable suspicion had not firmly been established at the time of the stop, Defendant’s behavior during the stop, considered in conjunction with Trooper Pope’s knowledge of the drug-trafficking investigation, certainly did so. Most notably, Defendant lied to Trooper Pope.” United States v. Harrington, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13983 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Removing the alleged unlawful information from the search warrant application from defendant’s unreasonable stop in the Anchorage airport still leaves probable cause. The good faith exception also applies. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14308 (D. Alaska Jan. 27, 2025).*
The increasing adoption of FRT and AI necessitates careful examination of their legal and ethical ramifications. These cutting-edge technologies raise complex issues surrounding the use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement, analyzing its impact on individual rights, and exploring the ongoing efforts to strike a balance between security and privacy.
Drugs on defendant’s person at the time of arrest were admissible under 404(b) despite being outside the time of the indictment. United States v. Hodo, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1796 (8th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).
Defendant was on supervised release and the search of his cell phone producing child pornography was reasonable. United States v. Shove, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13428 (D. Nev. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Identification by a single eyewitness is sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest. There was no reason to doubt the reliability of the identification in this case. The existence of an arrest warrant and grand jury indictment created presumptions of probable cause that defendant failed to rebut. Lee v. Harris, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1668 (7th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Speculative statements about a potential Franks violation doesn’t support a 2255. United States v. Fisher, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13662 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2025).*
Courthouse News: En banc Fourth Circuit panel uses bank robbery to debate geofence warrants by Joe Dodson (“The full panel of judges discussed the constitutionality of law enforcement using millions of people’s data to solve crimes. [¶] An en banc panel of the Fourth Circuit Thursday used a bank robbery to debate whether geofence warrants violated the Fourth Amendment. [¶] The nearly two-hour oral arguments allowed the 15 judges to enjoy a contentious discussion of Google’s role in law enforcement investigations. [¶] ‘It cast a digital dragnet that gave police discretion over what to search and see,’ Attorney Michael Price of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, representing the defendant, said. ‘It was like making a landlord search every unit of a million-story apartment.’”)
Posted ingeofence|Comments Off on Courthouse News: En banc Fourth Circuit panel uses bank robbery to debate geofence warrants
A search warrant for blood BAC doesn’t also allow search for drugs. State v. Johnson, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 18 (Jan. 28, 2025).
Defendant was on supervised release and the search of his cell phone producing child pornography was reasonable. United States v. Shove, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13428 (D. Nev. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Identification by a single eyewitness is sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest. There was no reason to doubt the reliability of the identification in this case. The existence of an arrest warrant and grand jury indictment created presumptions of probable cause that defendant failed to rebut. Lee v. Harris, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1668 (7th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Speculative statements about a potential Franks violation doesn’t support a 2255. United States v. Fisher, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13662 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2025).*
Plaintiff was arrested for child sexual abuse. The child recanted, and the prosecutor involved was disbarred for misconduct in this case. Plaintiff’s claim for a Franks violation was well established by 1978, and qualified immunity denied. MacMaster v. Busacca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13959 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2025).
Defendant’s cell phone being used to communicate with minors about coming to his house was nexus. The warrant was also particular. Finally, there was also an independent source for the information leading to the warrant. United States v. Timothy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13476 (D. Neb. Jan. 27, 2025).*
“Here, the application for the warrant adequately describes the offense (drug and firearm violations), the premises to be searched (the ‘residence blue in color’ at 1018 Jefferson Street), and the property to be seized (controlled dangerous substances, records of drug trafficking, firearms, drug paraphernalia, and currency used to finance the trafficking).” The good faith exception also applies. United States v. Holmes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13523 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2025).*
Officers lacked reasonable suspicion for a probation search of defendant’s vehicle. In addition, its search couldn’t be justified by search incident when he was already transported to the hospital before the search occurred. United States v. Heafner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13045 (D. Mont. Jan. 24, 2025).
The officer is not entitled to qualified immunity because his alleged use of intermediate force against a non-resisting, unarmed suspect accused of a non-violent felony violated plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Also, existing precedent squarely governed the specific situation at issue. Howard v. Fye, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1635 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2025).*
No ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrant. It was not based on stale information. State v. Mundon, 2025 Haw. App. LEXIS 26 (Jan. 22, 2025).*
2254 petitioner doesn’t show that he could prevail on the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel failed to timely file a motion to suppress. If he couldn’t have won, no prejudice. Mosley v. Dixon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12920 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2025).*
The USMJ’s credibility determinations on a search issue aren’t subject to de novo review before the USDJ. United States v. Messer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11783 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2025).*
Collective knowledge supported reasonable suspicion here to extend the stop for a dog sniff while the officer’s own knowledge is found insufficient. (The court notes the use of the drug dog was calculated all along.) State v. Brown, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 7 (Jan. 24, 2025).*
Holding the arrestee was reasonable since she was actively resisting. Moore v. Oakland Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1473 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2025).*
The CBP agent lacked reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop for smuggling of people. His reasonable suspicion factors at the hearing were all based on speculation. What he relied on just didn’t add up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ramirez-Nava, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12672 (D. Ariz. Jan. 24, 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.
