Adoption of his suppression motion brief by reference without briefing it was waiver. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation with his girlfriend in the presence of a CI. State v. Davis, 2025-Ohio-2382, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2327 (12th Dist. July 7, 2025).
Defendant was asleep in his truck, and there was no reasonable suspicion of any crime to order him out of it. United States v. Richie, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127757 (N.D.W. Va. July 7, 2025).*
The pistol seen in plain view during defendant’s stop was justification for the automobile exception. United States v. Cole, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127782 (E.D. Okla. July 7, 2025).*
Defendant gets no CoA on his Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [Unsaid: He can’t possibly prevail.] United States v. Campbell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16567 (4th Cir. July 7, 2025).*
The trial court erred in finding no standing when the state didn’t even raise it. State v. Reynolds, 2025-Ohio-2347, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2332 (5th Dist. July 2, 2025).
During the stop, the driver could be ordered out of the vehicle. The patdown is a different matter. No showing was made by the government that it was based on reasonable suspicion, but there was a dog sniff based on the smell of marijuana, so all this is inevitable. United States v. Ríos-Sánchez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127498 (D.P.R. July 3, 2025).*
The appellate complaint was that the probable cause issue wasn’t dealt with at the suppression hearing, but it was reopened and it was. United States v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16514 (6th Cir. July 2, 2025).*
Without deciding the merits of defendant’s nexus claim, there was enough here for the good faith exception to apply. United States v. Cater, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16494 (6th Cir. July 3, 2025).*
The Heck bar is an affirmative defense that has to be pled by defendants under F.R.C.P. 8(c). Megna v. Musial, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127980 (E.D. Wis. July 7, 2025).
Defendant’s driving justified his stop. State v. Craven, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1294 (July 7, 2025).*
Under Franks, “Such a substantial preliminary showing requires more than mere allegations of defects in a warrant. A defendant must produce evidence of the complained-of defects by offering affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses. If the defendant cannot produce such evidence, he must explain why he cannot do so.” He fails. In addition, while the probable cause is thin, it’s not nonexistent, and the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Moa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126498 (D. Utah July 2, 2025).*
Administrative summonses for IP subscriber information was not overbroad based on NCMEC reports. That led to search warrants. United States v. Snell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128179 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2025).*
Defendant’s driveway was not curtilage, so his stop and ultimate search of the car was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Moses, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16484 (3d Cir. July 3, 2025).
De minimis force, even grabbing or choking that leaves only minor injuries, is not excessive force. Glenn v. Britt, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16402 (11th Cir. July 3, 2025).*
There was a fair probability evidence would be found on defendant’s phone concerning an infant death about two weeks earlier. Therefore, the warrant was not stale. State v. White, 2025 S.C. App. LEXIS 42 (July 2, 2025).*
The officer’s statement that defendant had to give a breath sample wasn’t material. “Given that Allen had no constitutional right to refuse the breathalyzer test, the validity of his consent was legally immaterial for purposes of his suppression motion.” State v. Allen, 2025-Ohio-2353 (2d Dist. July 3, 2025).*
Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply. State v. Abonza, 2025 UT App 101, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 102 (July 3, 2025).
Based on collective knowledge, there was probable cause for defendant’s stop. Morris v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4773 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth July 3, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t have standing to challenge this car search, and the motion to reconsider is denied. United States v. Gaines, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126894 (N.D. Ohio June 24, 2025).*
The legality of the warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone while in his halfway house doesn’t have to be decided because there was a subsequent warrant for it. United States v. Weste, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16447 (5th Cir. July 3, 2025).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on UT: Merely possible is not sufficient for inevitable discovery to apply
Defendant’s single location information entered into a phone app that was used to set up a robbery was basic third-party information not protected by Carpenter. State v. Diaw, 2025-Ohio-2323 (July 2, 2025):
[While it was thin,] The officer had reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff, including “react[ing] defensively when asked for consent to search the Sentra by making a facial expression, flailing his arms to the side, and offering unprompted explanations as to what he was doing.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126662 (E.D. Ark. July 3, 2025)*:
The government admits that the warrant lacked particularity, but they sought to use the good faith exception to sustain a limited search. The problem there is that the person who sought the warrant didn’t search it, and he instructed the searcher to search the entire phone. Therefore, the good faith exception did not apply to the particularity claim. The officer’s candid motive to get a second search warrant to cure the first doesn’t satisfy the attenuation doctrine, and the motion to suppress should be granted. United States v. Gross, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126677 (N.D. Iowa July 3, 2025) (R&R). The court surveys the cases and concludes:
Posted inAttenuation, Particularity|Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: USMJ recommends grant of motion to suppress; second SW to cure defects in first not proper for attenuation doctrine
A person accused has a statutory right of access to search warrant affidavits in his own case. “The applicable provisions state only that the documents ‘shall be made available’ to defendants ‘when requested,’ without specifying to whom the request should be directed.” State v. Haynes, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 157 (July 3, 2025).
“A police officer armed with probable cause to believe a home contains evidence of a serious crime that might otherwise be destroyed may lawfully secure the home and restrict entry while waiting for an assisting officer to diligently procure a search warrant.” There was exigency and defendant also consented to it all. State v. Arredondo, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 158 (July 3, 2025).*
Disagreeing with a state visibility of the license plate number in federal cases, the state court clarifies that the totality of circumstances applies to the visibility requirement which can be different things at different times and conditions. Whether the state name is clearly visible isn’t a statutory requirement. Denial of motion to suppress reversed, and the case is remanded. State v. Beck, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 155 (July 3, 2025).*
In this 2254, petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn’t object that the search warrant was not personally served on him wasn’t a constitutional requirement. Also barred by Stone. Witkowski v. Bennett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126262 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2025).
Defendant’s 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel is denied for failing to show that a motion to suppress would have been granted or the outcome different. United States v. Aside, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125901 (D. Nev. July 2, 2025).*
The state parole search of defendant’s cell phone was justified by reasonable suspicion under special needs. United States v. Watson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125812 (N.D. Ohio July 2, 2025).*
Defendant was given the chance to elaborate in opposition to the government’s claim of abandonment, but he remained silent. Abandonment found. United States v. Pérez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126505 (D.P.R. June 30, 2025).*
The video of execution of the search warrant was sufficiently authenticated to be admissible at trial despite coming in through a witness other than the one who took it. United States v. Reyes-Rosario, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16316 (1st Cir. June 5, 2025).
The probable cause for defendant’s arrest included probable cause to search his backpack too. United States v. Brito, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126351 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2025).*
A private search of defendant’s cell phone resulted in four search warrants, all with probable cause. United States v. Lawson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126221 (E.D. Mich. July 2, 2025),*
When defendant doesn’t dispute material facts of the stop, a hearing isn’t required. Based on the video and the statements of witnesses, there was probable cause for his arrest. Then the vehicle search was proper as a search incident. United States v. Morfin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125265 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2025).*
Officers were doing a marijuana flyover looking for another operation and saw what appeared to be a grow operation on defendant’s property. The affidavit for probable cause only said that the officer saw and photographed evidence that could indicate a grow operation but did not actually see marijuana, except with a powerful zoom. That wasn’t enough to see marijuana undercover from ⅔ of a mile above. Here, the zoom of the camera made individual plants under plastic sheeting visible, and that was a search of a private place that couldn’t be done with the naked eye. State v. Nakhiengchahn, 341 Or. App. 516 (July 2, 2025):
“[T]he warrant in this case authorized collection of location data and certain message content surrounding the crimes. While the warrant could have been more particular by limiting each category using the language ‘related to the crimes,’ the warrant’s incorporation of the attached affidavit served the same function. Moreover, unlike the search in Herrera, which extracted personal data and text messages, the search of records and cell phone location data did not involve the extraction of files from Rodriguez-Ortiz’s phone or a search of its ‘entire contents.’ Id. The officers used the search of outgoing and incoming calls and text messages to establish Rodriguez-Ortiz’s communications before, during, and after the crimes.” People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz, 2025 COA 61, 2025 Colo. App. LEXIS 904 (June 26, 2025).
The juvenile’s claim that she was unreasonably arrested with force such that it was an unreasonable seizure was not presented below and waived. In re A.D., 2025-Ohio-2349 (9th Dist. July 2, 2025).*
Defendant wasn’t seized until actually detained. The officer was on foot patrol in a high crime area known for drug sales. Defendant’s presence alone wasn’t reasonable suspicion, but here the officer had more. Shining his flashlight on defendant wasn’t yet a seizure. Defendant discarded a gun in flight, and that was abandonment. United States v. Wright, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125571 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2025).*
WaPo: What is and isn’t legal when ICE officers make an immigration arrest by Arelis R. Hernández (“Videos showing masked officers whisking people into unmarked cars have sparked outcry. A look at ICE’s powers as Congress prepares to give the agency a giant infusion of cash.”)
Posted inImmigration arrests|Comments Off on WaPo: What is and isn’t legal when ICE officers make an immigration arrest
CNS: Washington allows state, local police to execute tribal arrests by Edvard Pettersson (“A change in state law will allow tribes certified by the attorney general’s office to avoid extradition proceedings to have wanted individuals returned to tribal lands.”)
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on CNS: Washington allows state, local police to execute tribal arrests
Defendant succeeds in a Franks challenge: Defendant’s case arose because the officer swore that defendant matched a surveillance video of a robbery. He really believed it, but he was wrong because there were obvious reasons to discount his belief. The court finds that defendant prevailed in his Franks burden of showing recklessness and that it was all material to the probable cause finding. The search of his house is suppressed. United States v. Broadus, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122021 (W.D. Pa. May 27, 2025).
The fact the RI license plate was registered to a different vehicle was justification for this stop in Idaho. State v. Sherwood, 2025 Ida. LEXIS 71 (June 30, 2025).*
A 19 year old was having sex with a 16 year old and recorded it. He threatened to “post your shit to Facebook.” A search warrant for the phone produced the images, and he was convicted of child pornography. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 16022 (10th Cir. June 30, 2025).*
Conflict of laws: Defendant’s arrest and search was in Kansas City, Missouri, but his offense was tried in Kansas City, Kansas. State law on this doesn’t matter. Applying the Fourth Amendment, it was all legal. State v. Green, 2025 Kan. LEXIS 149 (June 27, 2025).
The weapons surrender statute for orders of protection didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. He had production immunity. In re Domestic Violence Prot. Ord. for Montesi, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 1273 (June 30, 2025).*
Defendant’s cell phone was searched under a state warrant, but the case went dormant. Three years later, a federal search warrant was issued. The state warrant was without probable cause, but good faith saves it. Defendant’s claim on the federal warrant depends on that. (Reasonableness of the delay apparently not argued.) United States v. McGee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123935 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2025).*
Prison strip searches after video visitation were committed to the discretion of the warden. The fact nothing was found isn’t really material. Ingram v. Squier, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123892 (W.D. Va. June 30, 2025).*
Three-day delay between seizure of defendant’s car and getting a warrant to search was reasonable. People v. Mills, 2025 CO 47, 2025 Colo. LEXIS 572 (June 30, 2025).
Defendant’s cell phone was linked to his prostitution/human trafficking case, so there was probable cause for the warrant to search it. Jackson v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4597 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) July 1, 2025).*
Defendant claims false testimony was used to get an indictment, and he requests a Franks hearing. Franks is a Fourth Amendment issue; indictments is a Fifth Amendment issue. Denied. United States v. Twitty, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123997 (S.D. Ga. June 30, 2025).*
The trial court credited the officer’s testimony that the license plate light was out justifying this stop. State v. Davis, 2025-Ohio-2322 (5th Dist. June 27, 2025).*
The trial court erred in applying the attenuation doctrine here. Defendant claimed he was illegally stopped, but he fled and discarded contraband in flight. Commonwealth v. Diaz, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 300 (June 27, 2025).
This geofence warrant was supported by probable cause. De H Nguyen v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4532 (Tex. App. – Austin June 27, 2025).*
Defendant’s Terry stop was “intrusive and aggressive,” but the officer had reasonable suspicion defendant was a felon in possession when confronted in a bodega. United States v. Rhodes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121818 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2025).*
The omissions from the affidavit don’t do anything to undermine the probable cause so a Franks hearing was properly denied. United States v. Higgins, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15877 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025).*
Posted inAttenuation, Franks doctrine, geofence, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on MA: Defendant fled his allegedly illegal stop, so he can’t argue attenuation when he discarded contraband in flight
"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.
