Officers responding to a 911 call about alleged domestic violence in public handcuffed defendant. This was reasonable at the time. Reasonable suspicion for a search of the cross body bag on him was lacking. He was handcuffed, there was no inkling there was a weapon in there, but the officers were only interested in defendant’s criminal history and potential for drug use. United States v. Beltran, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176018 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2025).
The officer’s failure to mention things he knew nothing about wasn’t a Franks violation. On the whole, there was probable cause for this anticipatory warrant. United States v. Vishnevski, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177145 (S.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2025).*
Defendant failed in his burden of showing standing in the rental car that was searched he was only a passenger in. At any rate, the protective sweep of the car was reasonable. United States v. Jones, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176685 (E.D. Mo. Sep. 10, 2025).*
The warrant for defendant’s computer was overbroad in seeking alleged child pornography of others than the known alleged victims, essentially based on assumptions about child pornographers. State v. Schult, 343 Or. App. 376 (Sep. 10, 2025). This is a rarity:
ABAJ: Kavanaugh cites precedent, ‘common sense’ in supporting SCOTUS order allowing immigration stops by Debra Cassens Weiss (“Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained his agreement with a U.S. Supreme Court stay on Monday that allowed the federal government to continue making immigration stops in the Los Angeles area based on factors that include apparent ethnicity and the type of work done. In a concurrence, Kavanaugh said apparent ethnicity alone does not justify reasonable suspicion supporting an immigration stop, but it can be a relevant factor when combined with other factors.”)
The Atlantic: The Government Wants to See Your Papers by Tom Nichols (“And the Supreme Court decides that the Fourth Amendment might not be for everyone.” “‘You there. Stop what you’re doing. Take off that tool belt and hard hat—let’s see some ID. Why? Because we don’t think you’re a citizen. Now show us your papers.‘ This kind of behavior by government officials is now legal in the United States.”)
Posted inImmigration arrests, SCOTUS|Comments Off on ABAJ: Kavanaugh cites precedent, ‘common sense’ in supporting SCOTUS order allowing immigration stops
Having the driver come back to the patrol car is a basic safety concern within the scope of any traffic stop. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23113 (10th Cir. Sep. 8, 2025).
“Voorhis’s false arrest claim is meritless based on the ‘any-crime rule.’ Rivera-Guadalupe, 124 F.4th at 303. According to the any-crime rule, a police officer defendant can defeat a false arrest claim by showing that he had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for ‘any offense that could be charged under the circumstances.’ Id. at 299 (quoting Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595, 602 (3d Cir. 2005)). ‘[P]robable cause to arrest exists if there is a ‘fair probability’ that the person committed the crime at issue.’ Dempsey v. Bucknell Univ., 834 F.3d 457, 467 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citation omitted).” Voorhis v. Ginkel, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22973 (3d Cir. Sep. 5, 2025).*
The bookbag found in defendant’s room was searched under his release conditions waiver. He doesn’t even claim it was his for standing [which was a moot point]. State v. Thompson, 2025-Ohio-3262 (9th Dist. Sep. 10, 2025).*
AirBnb and its permittees don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that was already essentially turned over to the city in getting permits in the first place. Bodin v. City of New Orleans, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174172 (E.D. La. Sep. 5, 2025).*
Even if defense counsel did a better job of showing defendant’s alleged standing to challenge the search, there’s no way he’d win on the merits anyway. So no IAC. Harris v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173527 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 5, 2025).*
Defendant fails on his Franks burden: “Initially, Defendant has not specifically identified any alleged false statements in the Affidavit, nor has he specified any items that he contends were omitted. Rather, Defendant broadly states that the Affidavit ‘contains various misstatements and material omissions that render the same invalid,’ … without further elaboration. (… (claiming that ‘there are material omissions, misstatements, and misrepresentations made to the magistrate,’ but failing to identify the same). This is directly contrary to Franks’ requirement that he must specifically identify the false statements or omissions. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171; ….” United States v. Aikens, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174149 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 8, 2025).*
The affidavit for search warrant was based on probable cause. [And it isn’t even close.] United States v. Pitter, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174092 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 8, 2025).*
LAT: You look Latino. You speak Spanish. You work hard. That’s now probable cause. by Dean Florez (“When I was a young UCLA constitutional law major, we learned that the Constitution wasn’t just parchment behind glass: It was a living promise, fragile and ferocious, meant to protect the people when power overreached. But on Monday morning, the Supreme Court taught me something new: that those promises, in the hands of a certain kind of court, can vanish without argument, without a hearing, without even a signed name. In Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, a majority of justices gave a silent blessing to immigration raids in Los Angeles that target people for looking Latino, speaking Spanish and working jobs that build this country but never pay enough to live in it.”)
Bailing out of a truck on the sidewalk of a convenience store and running away leaving the windows open and it unlocked is an abandonment. United States v. Tsatenawa, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23079 (5th Cir. Sep. 5, 2025).
The affidavit for warrant here was not just bare bones, so the good faith exception applies. United States v. Rayos, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23081 (5th Cir. Sep. 5, 2025).*
Plaintiff was arrested by immigration officers but was denied a probable cause determination thereafter in violation of federal law. His removal from New Mexico pending this case is enjoined. Lira v. Noem, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173818 (D.N.M. Sep. 5, 2025).*
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim in this custody matter wasn’t presented below so it’s waived. Tirado v. Tirado, 2025-Ohio-3170 (1st Dist. Sept. 5, 2025).*
AP: Woman wrongly accused of carjacking loses lawsuit against Detroit police who used facial tech by Ed White (“ A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Detroit police in the wrongful arrest of a pregnant woman who was charged in a carjacking partly because of facial recognition technology. Porcha Woodruff, who was eight months pregnant, spent 10 hours in jail after she was arrested at her suburban Detroit home while getting children ready for school in February 2023. Police admitted she was the wrong suspect, and charges were eventually dropped. Detroit has changed how it uses facial recognition technology based on Woodruff’s arrest and another case.”)
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on AP: Woman wrongly accused of carjacking loses lawsuit against Detroit police who used facial tech
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on Reason: Florida Deputies Jailed Her for 3 Days Even Though She Was Obviously Not the Suspect Described in a Warrant
Officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop and patdown. His resistance justified handcuffs, and it still did not become an arrest until the gun was found. United States v. Gatling, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171825 (D.D.C. Sep. 2, 2025)*:
Defendant’s GPS tether alert was reasonable suspicion for a probation search. United States v. Moore, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170428 (D. Mont. Sep. 2, 2025).
The allegation that drug traffickers regularly use cell phones to communicate about the dealings is sufficient to show probable cause. United States v. Gonsalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167706 (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2025).*
Defendant’s claim about his cell phone search wasn’t specific below, but getting to the merits anyway, the court decides the interaction was extended by consent. United States v. Weiss, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22195 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2025).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim but not his statement claim. United States v. Isip, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167262 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2025).*
Defendant’s hiding a small pouch in another person’s car was not abandonment. He otherwise manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. United States v. Jensen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170474 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 2, 2025).
Defendant’s encounter with the officer here after one with mall security was consensual. United States v. Dessasure, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168056 (S.D. Ga. July 7, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167009 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2025).*
There was probable cause for defendant’s stop, contrary to his claim. State v. Cabiness, 2025-Ohio-3087 (5th Dist. Aug. 28, 2025).*
Petitioner’s claim he was entitled to a Franks hearing with newly discovered evidence fails because the part he’s contesting doesn’t matter to the probable cause determination. Rodgers v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168000 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2025).*
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a convenience store bathroom where, calling attention to himself, he ducked inside to hide a gun and didn’t lock the door. United States v. Scott, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22618 (7th Cir. Sep. 2, 2025).
Fourth Amendment claims can’t be brought in habeas. [It seems apparent no standing anyway.] Sadeek v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170604 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2025).*
“On appeal, Springstun argues his rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated. Springstun did not make a Fourth Amendment claim in the trial court. Accordingly, he has not preserved this constitutional complaint.” Springstun v. Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maint. Ass’n, Inc., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6848 (Tex. App. – Beaumont Aug. 28, 2025).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim but not his statement claim. United States v. Isip, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167262 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2025).*
Prison strip search: “Here, liberally construed, it appears plaintiff may be able to state a Fourth Amendment claim against the defendants who stripped plaintiff naked where it is alleged that plaintiff was brought to the ASU from the program office in full restraints and the guards did not search the clothing stripped off of plaintiff; and where there was no allegation that plaintiff was hiding a weapon or was suicidal.” Kendall v. Brazil, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170583 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2025).*
The allegation that drug traffickers regularly use cell phones to communicate about the dealings is sufficient to show probable cause. United States v. Gonsalez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167706 (D.N.M. Aug. 28, 2025).*
Defendant’s claim about his cell phone search wasn’t specific below, but getting to the merits anyway, the court decides the interaction was extended by consent. United States v. Weiss, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22195 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2025).*
Balancing the interests involved, the trial court found that the 123-day delay between seizure of defendant’s cell phone and seeking a search warrant for it was unreasonable. On de novo review, “That notwithstanding, there is no Massachusetts precedent upholding as reasonable anything remotely approaching the 123-day delay in the present case.” Commonwealth v. Diaz, 2025 Mass. App. LEXIS 78 (Aug. 29, 2025).
In a wire and tax fraud case, “It was reasonable to believe that the computers—which the affidavit stated contained Park Southern’s financial and accounting records—would provide corroborating evidence of those crimes. J.A. 238, 254. Other information cited in the warrant, including statements about Scott’s embezzlement and allegations of financial mismanagement, further supported probable cause of Scott’s tax fraud, J.A. 249, reinforcing the inadequacy of Scott’s challenges to probable cause.” Besides, he consented to the search. United States v. Scott, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22247 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).*
Plain feel of a loose pills in a fanny pack during arrest justified its search. United States v. Childs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168214 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2025).*
"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.
