Defendant was detained on a mental health hold and his pockets were searched. He didn’t contest the search, just the opening of a container, which was reasonable here. State v. Parris, 2025 S.D. 27 (June 13, 2025).
Plaintiff’s decedent was high on PCP and actively resisting and thrashing around while handcuffed. Drive stunning him [using the Taser’s probes] was not unreasonable. Anderson v. Estrada, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14673 (5th Cir. June 13, 2025).*
Defendant is charged with arson in interstate commerce. With tower dump warrants his cell phone was present in the area of nine of 18 fires when they happened. Then a tracking warrant was obtained for his vehicle. All were with probable cause. A Franks claim is denied because the asserted omission isn’t. United States v. Pricop, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112722 (D. Ariz. June 13, 2025).*
Plaintiff inmate has a possible administrative remedy, but no Fourth Amendment claim. Baltas v. Snyder, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112799 (D. Conn. June 13, 2025).*
The charge is murder in aid of racketeering, and a geofence warrant was used. The process is described below, and the application was defective at step 2, but not so defective that the good faith exception didn’t apply. At the end, below, the court talks about the reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI records. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112603 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2025):
LAT: States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe by Caroline Petrow-Cohen (“Dozens of states have filed a joint lawsuit against the bankrupt DNA-testing company 23andMe to block the company’s sale of its customers’ genetic data without explicit consent. The suit, filed this week in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, comes months after 23andMe began a court-supervised sale process of its assets. The South San Francisco-based venture was once valued at $6 billion and has collected DNA samples from more than 15 million customers.”) [My fear is that CODIS will buy it. Apparently, the government hasn’t thought of it yet.’
Posted inDNA|Comments Off on LAT: States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe
“Did Trooper Rorie’s 20 seconds of questioning and request for consent prolong the stop beyond the time needed to complete the remaining tasks of the traffic stop? We hold that it did not. The brief duration of the inquiry within the reasonable period of the traffic stop’s original purpose did not impermissibly prolong it.” When defendant consented to the officer searching his car, the officer’s picking up his cellphone was not a search of the phone. The screen only lit up, and that did not violate Arizona v. Hicks because of the consent. United States v. Puckett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14316 (8th Cir. June 11, 2025).
For Rodriguez, “The Court recognizes that traffic stops on Indian reservations inevitably take longer due to the complexities of police power on reservations and the need to alert non-tribal police officers to issue traffic infractions to non-tribal members.” United States v. Severns, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110978 (D. Mont. June 11, 2025).
Because the investigation is still open, the target can’t yet get access to the sealed search warrant affidavit. In re Sealed Search Warrant Application, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108643 (S.D. Tex. June 9, 2025).*
The plaintiff in a § 1983 case has the burden on clearly established law, and here the showing completely failed. “Anemic.” Bailey v. Beale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14449 (10th Cir. June 12, 2025).*
“[T]he individual officers did not violate clearly established law because at least one of the charges was supported by probable cause.” Rasawehr v. Grey, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14430 (6th Cir. June 10, 2025).*
“As Carter acknowledges, the Fourth Amendment requires analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and, as the Supreme Court has reiterated, the totality-of-the-circumstances approach ‘precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis.’ See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002); … Under the totality of the circumstances, Carter was inconsistent with police officers and had inside knowledge about the crime. These facts taken together are sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. … Carter also does not point to any materially false facts or omissions that would negate the finding of probable cause. Without such facts or omissions, this Court cannot infer a reckless disregard for the truth. … Carter has not carried his burden to plead a constitutional violation. Thus, the district court properly held that Ludwick and Kious are entitled to qualified immunity on Carter’s false arrest claim.” Carter v. Ludwick, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14436 (8th Cir. June 12, 2025).*
Officer’s entry to look for a potential shooting victim was reasonable on exigent circumstances. United States v. Bird, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112088 (E.D. Okla. May 7, 2025).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging defendant’s taking DNA by warrant. The warrant was based on a cold CODIS hit and a follow-up warrant was sought. The challenge would fail. Wood v. Schiebner, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14519 (6th Cir. June 11, 2025).*
Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant and went to his house, but he wasn’t home. They had information he used his vehicle in burglaries. They waited, and an APLR alert showed where he was. When he got home, they searched his car because it was present for burglaries. The seizure and search of the vehicle was reasonable. McGinnis v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4023 (Tex. App. – Dallas June 4, 2025)* (unpublished).
Defendant’s parole search was with reasonable suspicion and was conducted reasonably. United States v. Robinson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111571 (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2025).*
Destruction of A&E LivePD raw video didn’t justify dismissing defendants’ indictment. Defendants were an ADA and the sheriff. State v. Nassour, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4047 (Tex. App. – Austin June 13, 2025):
After federal law enforcement officers raided the wrong house, which should have been evident at the time, the occupants stay in court on their FTCA claim and get to litigate the negligence claim. Martin v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2281 (U.S. June 12, 2025). ScotusBlog is here. From the holding in the Syllabus:
In a child pornography case, defendant’s girlfriend was not acting as an agent of the police when she used his passcode to open his phone in the presence of an officer. United States v. Hines, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14336 (2d Cir. June 11, 2025):
WaPo: New Orleans pushes to legalize police use of ‘facial surveillance’ by Douglas MacMillan (“New Orleans is considering easing restrictions on the police use of facial recognition, weeks after The Washington Post reported that police there secretly relied on a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras to identify suspects on the street and arrest them. According to the draft of a proposed ordinance posted to a city website, police would be permitted to use automated facial recognition tools to identify and track the movements of wanted subjects, missing people or suspected perpetrators of serious crimes — reversing the city’s broad prohibition against using facial recognition as a ‘surveillance tool.’ … If the rule passes, New Orleans would become the first U.S. city to formally allow facial recognition as a tool for surveilling residents in real time.”)
Posted inFacial recognition|Comments Off on WaPo: New Orleans pushes to legalize police use of ‘facial surveillance’
Pro se defendant can’t raise a post-trial Fourth Amendment claim because he didn’t fully understand the FBI 302 discussing the search. “What Defendant is experiencing are the real-world consequences that he was warned of when he elected to proceed pro se. The ability to read and understand discovery materials, and to make timely objections based on those materials, are the hallmarks of criminal defense advocacy. Defendant, understandably, lacked those skills. But that’s not a basis for relief. Defendant cannot raise his Fourth Amendment claim now, and his request for relief based on that claim is denied.” United States v. Cox, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110706 (N.D. Ind. June 11, 2025).
Pro se motion to dismiss for a Franks violation is denied as untimely and not making the required “substantial preliminary showing.” United States v. Mayfield, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110451 (N.D. Iowa June 11, 2025).*
“Ms. Gray’s arguments to suppress evidence lack the required specificity to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge.” United States v. Gray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110928 (E.D. Mo. May 1, 2025).
“[T]he presence of contradictory evidence does not bar a finding of probable cause.” It must refute it. Scott v. City of Miami, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14381 (11th Cir. June 11, 2025):
The FBI’s civil demand from the BIA for BAC records from a hospital did not violate HIPAA. United States v. Cree Medicine, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110982 (D. Mont. June 11, 2025):
ABA: Stop and Frisk: Appropriate or Unconstitutional? by Oran Lott Bullock & Yolanda Means (“Stop and frisk is both a symbol of proactive policing and a flashpoint for civil liberties advocates. Central to the debate is the threshold of ‘reasonable suspicion.’ Reasonable suspicion was introduced in the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio as a significant exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment becomes relevant when stop and frisk practices disproportionately affect certain racial or ethnic groups. Police officers need comprehensive training that includes implicit bias recognition, de-escalation techniques, and clear guidelines on articulating reasonable suspicion.”)
Posted inStop and frisk|Comments Off on ABA: Stop and Frisk: Appropriate or Unconstitutional?
The affidavit for search warrant shows sufficient references to recent time to show it was not stale. “Put plainly, the Sixth Circuit does not require a search warrant affidavit to include the temporal specificity which Hardaway suggests is necessary. Rather, an affiant need only include ‘some temporal reference,’ to when a controlled buy occurred for it to be properly considered in the probable cause determination. United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2006).” United States v. Hardaway, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108568 (E.D. Ky. June 9, 2025).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle’s VIN number such that it can’t be used to verify insurance. Bradley v. Ill. Sec’y of State, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108842 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2025).
Uncertainty about what the trial court held in not believing the officers in granting a motion to suppress results in remand for further findings. State v. Mickel, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 125 (June 10, 2025).*
Presented as an effort to suppress, defendant can’t get discovery of how Snap operates in an effort to show that it is not a private actor in providing a CSAM tip to law enforcement. United States v. Ambrose, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108772 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2025).
The use of Automatic License Plate Readers to track movements of defendant’s car can’t (yet) equate with Carpenter’s CSLI. Maybe someday, but not here. There are many differences on this record. United States v. Sturdivant, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109054 (N.D. Ohio June 9, 2025):
Defendant’s search incident of his car for proof of insurance was without probable cause. As for reasonable suspicion, his change in demeanor once he found out a search of the car was going to occur didn’t contribute to reasonable suspicion. Also, “while the Court will consider Defendant’s unremarkably friendly demeanor in its analysis of the totality of the circumstances, it limits the weight afforded to this factor and finds that it carries only minimal, if any, significance.” On the totality of the other information, the unspecific information just didn’t add up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Baray, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109108 (D. Colo. June 9, 2025)*:
Defendant’s argument about admission of a search warrant affidavit at trial was deemed abandoned even for plain error review. Coston v. State, 2025 Ga. LEXIS 123 (June 10, 2025).* (Caution readers: I had this issue just this year: The prosecution offered a search warrant affidavit into evidence to rebut something, and it was coming in over my objection that it was full of hearsay and violated confrontation. I ended up abandoning that inquiry rather than go down that road. That’s going to be an issue on appeal.)
“Hobson did not make a preliminary showing that Garcia’s affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods. And even if he did, the affidavit would support probable cause with the challenged portions excised. Therefore, he is not entitled to a Franks hearing.” United States v. Hobson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106846 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025).*
Defendant’s probation home visit resulted in a plain view of a gun and plain smell of marijuana. That was reasonable suspicion for a full search. United States v. Akins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106616 (N.D. Ga. June 5, 2025).*
Search warrant for a car authorized search of a purse found inside. United States v. Cummings, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13777 (9th Cir. June 5, 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.
