S.D.W.Va.: RS determined at the time of stop, not by what found after

A “black man with a waving a gun” did not justify defendant’s stop. When officers arrived, he was just there. No gun visible or apparent. Reasonable suspicion is determined at the time, not after the fact. United States v. Wilder, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155580 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 12, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: RS determined at the time of stop, not by what found after

D.C.Cir.: Pole camera not governed by mosaic theory

Pole camera surveillance of a resident was reasonable and the mosaic theory did not apply. United States v. Green, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20410 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Pole cameras | Comments Off on D.C.Cir.: Pole camera not governed by mosaic theory

Latin Times: Trump Administration Pushes to Use Spanish Language as Grounds for Immigration Stops

Latin Times: Trump Administration Pushes to Use Spanish Language as Grounds for Immigration Stops in California by Pedro Camacho (“The administration argued that agents should be able to rely on these indicators when enforcing immigration laws.”) I had an associate 35 years ago, born in Puerto Rico, stopped in Little Rock for speaking Spanish. She’s now a Superior Court Judge in LA County.

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Latin Times: Trump Administration Pushes to Use Spanish Language as Grounds for Immigration Stops

MI: Two controlled buys where def left house to do it and returned was PC for house

The informant’s information here [to me] was conclusorily stated by the officer to be reliable [not discussed], except there were also two controlled buys from the defendant where he left his place and returned. [The latter is enough.] People v. Gault, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 6353 (Aug. 8, 2025).

“The officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Early. The officers had seen him ‘disappearing in the alleyways quickly’ with individuals the officers ‘presumed’ were ‘customers’ and observed him ‘tak[e] money from an individual in a car that pulled up to him.’ U.S. Ex. 1 at 3. There had also been a 911 call reporting that ‘dealer(s) [were] selling “white stuff”’ at the same location where a ‘red GMC Terrain’ was present. Id. at 2. In sum, probable cause was not based solely on unsupported assumptions by the officers as Mr. Early suggests. There were sufficient indicia of drug transactions to provide probable cause, and the officers were not required to confirm Mr. Early was in fact engaging in drug transactions before arresting him.” United States v. Early, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150931 (D. Minn. Aug. 6, 2025).*

Plaintiff argues that the use of force in his case was with obvious clarity as far as the qualified immunity inquiry goes, but he didn’t raise that below. Herold v. Christensen, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19806 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Nexus, Probable cause | Comments Off on MI: Two controlled buys where def left house to do it and returned was PC for house

Four on IAC claims

Appellant doesn’t get a CoA on his claim he could have appealed the denial of the suppression motion despite the guilty plea. United States v. Penton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*

“Thus, Loston’s claim fails because by pleading guilty, Loston ‘waived not only the filing of any and all pre-trial motions … but also any ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to his counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress.’ See United States v. Moss, No. 12-CV-1525, 2014 WL 4354535, at 8 (W.D. La. Sept. 2, 2014).” United States v. Loston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153751 (W.D. La. Aug. 7, 2025).

Petitioner can’t establish cause for procedural default in not appealing his post-conviction Fourth Amendment claim. Johnson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20167 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025).*

“[A]ppellant’s affidavit was unsupported and self-serving and did not meet the level of cogency required to support his claim for post-conviction relief. The claims contained in the affidavit are completely contradicted by the evidence in the record and introduced at trial and are unsupported by other evidence.” State v. Shamblin, 2025-Ohio-2760 (4th Dist. July 29, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on Four on IAC claims

SCOTUSBlog: Trump administration urges Supreme Court to block district court ruling preventing immigration stops

Amy Howe: Trump administration urges Supreme Court to block district court ruling preventing immigration stops (SCOTUSBlog Aug. 7), Noem v. Perdomo, 25A169. The stay application is here. The response is due August 12th, 5 pm.

Note: This is an application for stay, not a petition for cert, but the shadow docket carries as much weight these days. That thing I said about the shadow docket three weeks ago? I was wrong.

Posted in Immigration arrests, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUSBlog: Trump administration urges Supreme Court to block district court ruling preventing immigration stops

CA11: SW for 15 years worth of records was still particular

The warrant for records was particular, albeit for 15 years worth of bank records, but it matched the time period under investigation, 1/1/05-11/11/19. And the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gyetvay, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 20080 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop here based on recorded phone calls and collective knowledge of officers. United States v. Hill, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153244 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025).*

Defendant was ultimately indicted for passport and identity fraud. The search warrant for her bags and laptop stored with someone else was with probable cause. It was reasonable to believe storage was to hide them from law enforcement, too. United States v. Orovio-Hernandez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151182 (D. Mass. Aug. 6, 2025).*

There is no validly pled Fourth Amendment interest in dried blood spots of newborn infants. Lovaglio v. Baston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153686 (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2025).*

Posted in Particularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA11: SW for 15 years worth of records was still particular

OH2: State didn’t support basis for stop; remanded

Poorly developed record by the state results in remand. The state didn’t support its basis for the stop. State v. Scerba, 2025-Ohio-2791 (2d Dist. Aug. 8, 2025). Remember, in warrantless searches, the prosecution carries the burden of proof:

Continue reading
Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on OH2: State didn’t support basis for stop; remanded

TX7: Odor of MJ is PC; that’s TX precedent, and out of state cases don’t carry any weight

The odor of cannabis is still probable cause in Texas. “Emerging case law” in other states doesn’t matter because of Texas precedent. Parras v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5954 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Aug. 8, 2025).

Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of the car of a codefendant he was not connected to. United States v. Allen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151770 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2025);* United States v. Thin Elk, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19902 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025).*

Trial court doesn’t buy that the little baggie of meth was in plain view during this otherwise valid traffic stop. Motion to suppress granted. Guam v. Mesa, 2025 Guam Trial Order LEXIS 154 (July 28, 2025).*

These digital data warrants were limited and not overbroad, and didn’t sweep up information that the police didn’t need. State v. Dimolfetto, 342 Or. App. 456 (Aug. 6, 2025).*

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on TX7: Odor of MJ is PC; that’s TX precedent, and out of state cases don’t carry any weight

CNS: Office manager of Kansas newspaper raided by police settles lawsuit with town

CNS: Office manager of Kansas newspaper raided by police settles lawsuit with town by Hilled Aron (“The office manager of the Marion County Record, a Kansas weekly newspaper whose offices were raided by police, has settled her lawsuit with the city. The office manager’s attorney, Eric Weslander of Stevens & Brand in Lawrence, Kansas, said in an email that he couldn’t provide any details of the settlement, but that ‘the matter was resolved in a mutually agreeable manner.’ Police and county sheriff’s deputies raided the offices of the Marion County Record in August 2023, as well as the homes of its publisher, Eric Meyer, and a local city councilwoman. The searches sparked widespread outrage at what many said was a gross violation of the First Amendment, and briefly thrust the tiny town of Marion — population 1,943 — into the national spotlight. The news was even discussed during a White House press briefing.”).

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on CNS: Office manager of Kansas newspaper raided by police settles lawsuit with town

CA7: Omission of snitch’s criminal history wasn’t material compared to the detail

Omission of the CI’s criminal history and that he was already in trouble with the law wasn’t material here for Franks purposes. The detail overcame it. United States v. Hecke, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19836 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA7: Omission of snitch’s criminal history wasn’t material compared to the detail

NC: Nine-day delay between shooting and SW for gun wasn’t stale

A nine-day delay between a shooting and the search warrant for defendant’s place to look for the weapon wasn’t stale. The standard for timeliness is simply common sense. State v. Stevens, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 489 (Aug. 6, 2025).*

A strategic decision to forego a motion to suppress until it wasn’t timely anymore and then deciding to file it wasn’t good cause. It’s not like new facts came to light, which has been. United States v. Weston, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149843 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2025).*

Officers got information from a jail inmate that one “TJ” was involved in a string of car burglaries around Pensacola. The informant said he bought the gun he had from TJ and it was stolen. They knew TJ was staying at an extended stay hotel and went there to do a knock-and-talk. In the meanwhile, another officer was drafting a search warrant application for the room. When they arrived, “[s]erendipitously (at least for Investigator Kelley), a rideshare was dropping off a man matching ‘TJ’s’ description and a female passenger in front of the Red Roof Inn’s porte cochere.” They called out to him, and he ran, likely clutching a gun to his side. He was captured. A protective sweep was done of the room, and there were plenty of drugs. Motion to suppress denied. United States v. Fasold, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151780 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Staleness | Comments Off on NC: Nine-day delay between shooting and SW for gun wasn’t stale

E.D.N.C.: Not asking for hearing on motion to suppress not IAC

2255 petitioner faults his lawyer for not asking for a hearing on his motion to suppress, which lost, but he doesn’t show that it mattered. Moreover, this is really just taking a shot at recharacterizing the motion to suppress, but that fails. No matter how he puts it, he can’t prevail. Fonville v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152254 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Not asking for hearing on motion to suppress not IAC

UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

Getting the feds to administratively subpoena records for a sex offense involving a minor allegedly in violation of the Utah Electronic or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) didn’t require suppression. State v. Andrus, 2025 UT 32 (Aug. 7, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Exclusionary rule, State constitution | Comments Off on UT: State’s use of federal administrative subpoena to gather records for state sex crime does not require suppression

CA4: Dog sniff at apt. door here violated no REP

A dog sniff at defendant’s apartment door in a multi-unit complex didn’t violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. (Two unpublished cases in this circuit said that; this one’s published.) United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19648 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).

There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest and then the search incident of his backpack. Talley v. Jackson State Univ., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19727 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).*

“While Plaintiff argues that Sergeant Omey’s actions violated City law and policy, the ‘reasonableness’ standard for searches does not take account of local laws. See Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 178, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008) (‘[I]t is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law.’) Accordingly, Plaintiff has not proffered enough facts to indicate beyond a speculative level that the seizure violated Plaintiff’s rights.” Pifferini v. City of Eureka, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149758 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2025).*

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonableness, Search incident | Comments Off on CA4: Dog sniff at apt. door here violated no REP

CA5: “Fill in the blanks” arrest affidavit still showed PC

The “fill in the blanks” arrest affidavit for the Waco Twin Peaks biker shootout wasn’t fatally defective. What facts it had showed probable cause. Barnhart v. Stroman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19740 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025).

Based on a CI’s story, officers had reasonable suspicion to search defendant’s apartment under his probation search condition. United States v. Garman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149185 (D.N.M. Aug. 4, 2025).*

The officer’s travel plans question didn’t impermissibly extend the stop, and it led to other questions and reasonable suspicion. United States v. Love, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147985 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2025).*

The search should not have been suppressed. The affidavit for warrant showed probable cause including the smell of marijuana, too many surveillance cameras, and 60 alleged firearms [what does that have to do with anything if he’s not a felon?] State v. Lingo, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1445 (La. App. 1 Cir July 31, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA5: “Fill in the blanks” arrest affidavit still showed PC

VA: Drugs on the person during a stop led to PC for vehicle

The patdown of defendant’s person produced drugs. That gave probable cause to search the car too. McCoy v. Commonwealth, 2025 Va. App. LEXIS 445 (Aug. 5, 2025).

The state gets a hearing on whether there was additional information they had which was not included in the search warrant application. People v. Battle, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6448, 2025 NY Slip Op 51217(U) (Erie Co. July 30, 2025).*

There was no probable cause for an ion swab of defendant’s car as required in United States v. Dirksmeyer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8423 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2025), but the good faith exception still applies. United States v. Meeks, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148982 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2025).

Defendant fails in his Franks duty to make a substantial preliminary showing that the falsity undermined the probable cause. United States v. Gray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148858 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2025).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on VA: Drugs on the person during a stop led to PC for vehicle

TX6: Def abandoned cell phone; PC for SW didn’t matter

Defendant abandoned his cell phone, and then the police got a warrant for it. Still, it’s abandonment. Williams v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5777 (Tex. App. – Texarkana Aug. 5, 2025).*

The evidence supported the district court’s conclusion there was a factual basis for defendant’s stop for not signaling a turn soon enough. United States v. Cardinale, 24-2784 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025).*

A tracking warrant is for movement, not contents of a vehicle. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the Tracking Affidavit set forth sufficient facts to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe there was a fair probability that tracking the Vehicle’s location may lead to evidence of criminal activity. Notman, 831 F.3d at 1088.” United States v. Verser, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149701 (D. Minn. June 16, 2025).*

A film over the LPN making it harder to read justified this stop. United States v. Harris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149685 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2025).*

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on TX6: Def abandoned cell phone; PC for SW didn’t matter

Reason: Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Imperils the Fourth Amendment Rights of U.S. Citizens

Reason: Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Imperils the Fourth Amendment Rights of U.S. Citizens by Damon Root:

Continue reading
Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on Reason: Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Imperils the Fourth Amendment Rights of U.S. Citizens

Geofence cert. petition filed 7/30

Chatrie v. United States, 25-112 (docket; petition; prior post):

QUESTION PRESENTED

This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time.

In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought— without seeking an additional warrant—information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then—again without seeking an additional warrant—law enforcement requested de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery.

The questions presented are:

  1. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from the geofence warrant.
Posted in geofence, SCOTUS | Comments Off on Geofence cert. petition filed 7/30