The officer did not unreasonably extend this stop. The officer here knew that the car wasn’t stolen, but the computer check didn’t readily confirm the car was an Enterprise rental. The drug dog arrived and the sniff occurred before the stop was completed. McGhee v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6229 (Tex. App. – Dallas Aug. 15, 2025).*
Officers came to defendant’s house on a CI’s tip and evasive conduct at the door supplied more reasonable suspicion. United States v. Fuller, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158918 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2025).*
Posted inExcessive force, Immigration arrests|Comments Off on LATimes: Immigration agent fires shots at vehicle with people inside in San Bernardino operation
Officers’ random drug stops on the jetbridge of departing passengers at ATL were unreasonable on the face of the pleadings. The officers get qualified immunity, but their employer does not. André v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 23-13253 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025). See Tampa Free Press: Appeals Court Sides With Comedians, Rules Against Police In Georgia Airport Stop Lawsuit. Remember DEA agent Markonni working ATL with the infamous “drug courier profile” in the 1980s that matched whatever facts he had at hand? [First off, last off; walking fast, walking slow; no luggage, too much luggage. There used to be CLEs just on his claims. Lexis and Westlaw showed the discrepancies of his claims.]
There was probable cause to search defendant’s car based on the cloud of smoke that came out of the window when he rolled down the window, then admitting to opioids in the car. State v. Olvarrieta, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1492 (La. App. 4 Cir Aug. 8, 2025).*
“Although the Court finds that Deputy Fuston had reasonable suspicion that Ford and the passenger were hiding something, that level of suspicion was not required in order for him to order Ford to exit the vehicle. An officer may always order a driver to exit his vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, …” United States v. Ford, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154803 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine|Comments Off on D.P.R.: Franks: “defendants must do more than construct self-serving statements that refute the warrant affidavit”
The drug-sniffing dog’s repeatedly jumping onto and placing paws on a vehicle during a drug sniff constitutes a physical trespass for the purpose of obtaining information, and therefore qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment. Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 464 (Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished).
Habeas petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim can’t be reviewed in a 2255. Wood v. Warden, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20417 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2025).*
“We likewise agree with the District Court that the circumstances here support the officers’ reasonable suspicion that Brown was engaged in criminal activity. First, the remote lot where Brown was driven to was well known for criminal activity, with one officer testifying that it was ‘an area involved in high crime’ and ‘a haven for illegal activity, especially, regarding drugs and stolen property.’ … Second, the officers were already at the scene to investigate stolen property. Third, the officers had already arrested another individual who had an active warrant out for his arrest. Fourth, Brown, unprovoked, ran into a wooded area despite the cool temperatures and rainfall so heavy that the vehicle became stuck in the mud.” United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20388 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2025).*
The three informants were co-conspirators, eyewitnesses, and participants in the crime, and their information could be credited for search warrant. Taylor v. State, 2025 Miss. App. LEXIS 292 (Aug. 12, 2025).
Defendant’s 2255 re-raises his Fourth Amendment claim already rejected. Law of the case. United States v. Pea, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156071 (W.D. La. Aug. 11, 2025).*
The court credited the officer over the basis for the stop, even though it wasn’t mentioned on the bodycam. United States v. Kitchen, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20501 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
Plaintiff was being arrested for murder, and the force used wasn’t unreasonably excessive. It was reasonable to consider him a threat. Roe v. Fryer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20494 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
The protective sweep of defendant’s garage which led to an observation that made it into the warrant application was reasonable. A later entry into the garage by another officer wasn’t unreasonable. It mimicked the first. United States v. Constantinescu, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20686 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2025).
The state showed probable cause for defendant’s CSLI. State v. Evans, 2025 Conn. LEXIS 177 (Aug. 12, 2025).*
The 4-5 minute protective sweep was reasonable and justified by the facts. United States v. Francisco-Tomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156257 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2025).*
A game warden stopped defendant’s vehicle for suspicion of littering, and the smell of marijuana justified more. The FSTs, however, weren’t authorized by a game warden, so that part is suppressed. State v. Phelan, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 735 (Aug. 14, 2025).*
Frisk of appellant for merely being near an armed person was without reasonable suspicion. In re C.T.B., 2025 Minn. LEXIS 392 (Aug. 13, 2025).
There was arguable probable cause for defendant’s arrest. The claim that evidence was fabricated fails. “But a claim based on the alleged fabrication of evidence poses a ‘high bar to clear’: Mack must prove not only that Clausell’s identification as described in the officers’ reports was false, but also that the officers ‘manufactured’ it.” Mack v. City of Chi., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20594 (7th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
Whether the officer touching the windshield as he peered through it for a plain view was a Fourth Amendment trespass wasn’t clearly presented below so it’s not appealable. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20788 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
Defendant didn’t get seized until he was captured after he fled to avoid a possible frisk. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157794 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2025).*
The officer resting his hand on defendant’s truck while talking to him during a stop was not a separate seizure of him. United States v. Larremore, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20757 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025).
The closest case plaintiff has was decided two years after these events, so that doesn’t put the officers on notice. Smith v. Saenz, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20756 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025).*
The trial court didn’t properly consider all the suppression issues, so the case is remanded for a further hearing. People v. Hughes, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 6558 (Aug. 13, 2025).*
Collective knowledge justified this traffic stop, and reasonable suspicion developed thereafter. United States v. Godbersen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157249 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 14, 2025).*
Alabama permits open carry, and doing so is not reasonable suspicion. United States v. Mitchell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156980 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2025):
Child day care centers are sufficiently regulated by the state that they may be inspected. Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20697 (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025).
Defendant’s challenge to the basis for his stop that led instead to a police chase ended by stopsticks on I-80 was a challenge to the credibility of the officer, found against him by the district court. There were two bases for the stop. Meth and cocaine were thrown from the car in flight. Marijuana was smelled at the car when first stopped, then he took off. United States v. Kitchens, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20501 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
A court rule and a statute on juvenile arrests can be harmonized, and both apply. State v. A.M.W., 2025 Wash. LEXIS 433 (Aug. 14, 2025).*
WaPo: Checkpoint with ICE agents met by protesters in D.C. by Emma Uber and Lauren Morello (“Department of Homeland Security agents stopped cars at a busy intersection for seat belt violations and broken taillights.”):
Where the stop is based on partial covering of the LPN, a photograph is not required at the suppression hearing. United States v. Tribble, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156885 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2025).
Plaintiff’s issue of “the application for and execution of a search warrant” wasn’t presented below and was waived. Kemp v. Belanger, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20617 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied as untimely. United States v. Watkins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156589 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 13, 2025).*
This is the appeal of re-sentencing after defendant lost on the claim that the CI recorded him in his house, on which he lost. State v. Taylor, 2025-Ohio-2853 (4th Dist. Aug. 1, 2025).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Waiver|Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Photographic evidence of basis of stop not required
TX8, El Paso without much discussion sustains a geofence warrant. Also the warrants for the phone and social media accounts were issued with probable cause and were particular. Alvarez v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6106 (Tex. App. – El Paso Aug. 13, 2025):
“Running in response to the question about the gun is what gave the officers reasonable suspicion to think he might have one.” Then he tossed his gun “while tussling with officers.” United States v. Chumley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20497 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).
Defendant’s discovery had a scanning error and the search warrant affidavit had every other page copied. It was discovered before his plea and a complete copy was provided. Maybe defendant didn’t get to see it, but it almost certainly had no effect on his decision to plead guilty. What was missing only showed more evidence of guilt. The district court didn’t err in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Moreover, he received great benefits from the guilty plea, like dropping the consecutive gun count. United States v. Milam, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20573 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
Defendant didn’t file a motion to suppress before trial, and it’s waived for appeal. United States v. Martinez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20539 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025).*
Based on the complaint, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry into the home for a domestic disturbance that had calmed way down before police got there. Intertwined is the qualified immunity claim, and there’s not enough here to dismiss the case. [Although, reading between the lines, the case is going to ultimately fail because the police had been there before for the same reason.] Ghani v. Town of W. Seneca, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155767 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the officer knew defendant had an active warrant. The motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Songer, 2025 MT 176 (Aug. 12, 2025).*
Petitioner’s habeas claim is that the evidence wasn’t sufficient for conviction, but it’s really just an attempt to relitigate the Fourth Amendment claim. Wood v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20417 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2025).*
Appellant’s DNA was properly obtained by statute and re-analyzed later. His Fourth Amendment and state constitutional claims weren’t presented below and are waived. State v. Munoz-Hernandez, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1612 (Aug. 12, 2025).*
“To the extent the lack of an address lessens a warrant’s particularity, the other information more than makes up for it. … In this case, Walters highlights one factual error: No glass door bearing the numbers ‘13624’ existed when the officers conducted the controlled purchase or sought the warrant. But that statement wasn’t ‘material,’ because probable cause existed without it. As discussed above, Arbisi’s affidavit was credible and demonstrated a fair probability that contraband would be found at the location. The officers established that the CI didn’t have drugs, observed them enter the store, and monitored the CI as they regrouped with the officers. The false statement, therefore, didn’t impact the probable cause determination. What’s more, even if it were material, Walters doesn’t sufficiently allege that it was made knowingly or recklessly.” United States v. Walters, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155451 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2025).*
The trial court erred in finding no probable cause for defendant’s arrest. There was reasonable suspicion for FSTs, and the result there justified the arrest. State v. Cha, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6051 (Tex. App. – Dallas Aug. 12, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising standing where the government conceded standing and it had nothing to do with the trial court’s decision. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for putting exhibits into evidence at the suppression hearing to an attempt to rebut reasonable suspicion where they had nothing to do with the court’s decision. United States v. Spellman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153786 (D. Neb. Aug. 8, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Particularity|Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: A mistake on the address was made up for by other detail; no Franks violation
"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.
