Arnold & Porter: People Are Not Documents: Texas Court Rules That Administrative Inspection Warrants Cannot Be Used for Immigration Raids of Businesses

Arnold & Porter: People Are Not Documents: Texas Court Rules That Administrative Inspection Warrants Cannot Be Used for Immigration Raids of Businesses by Mohamed Al-Hendy, Lee M. Cortes, Jr., Ryan Hartman & Murad Hussain:

Continue reading
Posted in Administrative search, Immigration arrests | Comments Off on Arnold & Porter: People Are Not Documents: Texas Court Rules That Administrative Inspection Warrants Cannot Be Used for Immigration Raids of Businesses

OR: State didn’t develop alternative search theory just by mentioning it

The state didn’t sufficiently develop search incident as an alternative theory to sustain the search merely by mentioning it. State v. Ribota, 341 Or. App. 32 (June 4, 2025).

There is a fact question for trial for excessive force, and the right was clearly established that, if plaintiff was no longer a threat, the use of force was unreasonable. Keith v. Griffiths, No. 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14025 (6th Cir. June 6, 2025).*

Appellate counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising the claim that the search warrants must have been forged because more than one was rejected below and is frivolous. United States v. Lowe, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106950 (D. Kan. June 5, 2025).*

Defendant’s unwarned statements established probable cause for these warrants. United States v. Akins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106616 (N.D. Ga. June 5, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Search incident | Comments Off on OR: State didn’t develop alternative search theory just by mentioning it

Reason: Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information

Reason: Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information by Jacob Sullum (“Michael Mendenhall wants the Supreme Court to reconsider a precedent that allows home invasions based on nothing but hearsay.”). Cert. petitions almost never get mentioned here, but this one is irresistible:

Continue reading
Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on Reason: Denver Case Highlights the Potentially Deadly Hazards of Police Raids Based on Secondhand Information

Marshall Project: How AI-Powered Police Forces Watch Your Every Move

Marshall Project: How AI-Powered Police Forces Watch Your Every Move by Jamiles Lartley (“Artificial intelligence is changing how police investigate crimes — and monitor citizens — as regulators struggle to keep pace.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology, Video surveillance | Comments Off on Marshall Project: How AI-Powered Police Forces Watch Your Every Move

TechPolicy.press: A Model Framework for Regulating Geofence Warrants

TechPolicy.press: A Model Framework for Regulating Geofence Warrants by Vivek Krishnamurthy:

Continue reading
Posted in geofence | Comments Off on TechPolicy.press: A Model Framework for Regulating Geofence Warrants

NM: Aguilar-Spinelli are still followed here and they were satisfied

Aguilar-Spinelli is still followed in New Mexico, and its strictures were met here. Motion to suppress properly denied, and court of appeals reversed. State v. Perea, 2025 N.M. LEXIS 91 (June 5, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Informant hearsay, State constitution | Comments Off on NM: Aguilar-Spinelli are still followed here and they were satisfied

D.Md.: Delaying three years to indict after seizure compromised defense enough that speedy trial was violated

Defendant’s backpack was searched in 2017, but he wasn’t indicted until 2020, and his case lingered. The officer’s testimony about the search is hazy and inconclusive enough that the court finds cause to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. The defense was compromised. United States v. Alabi, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107502 (D. Md. June 6, 2025).

Defendant’s arrest without a warrant for a felony was with probable cause and was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Singleton, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107838 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2025).*

The use of deadly force against an active shooter here was reasonable, so the officer gets qualified immunity. Est. of Parker v. Miss. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13972 (5th Cir. June 6, 2025).*

The officer needed no search warrant to look in plaintiff’s car window on a parking lot. Crosson v. N. Light Sebasticook Valley Hosp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107598 (D. Me. June 6, 2025).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Md.: Delaying three years to indict after seizure compromised defense enough that speedy trial was violated

CA9 en banc: It’s settled that shooting again a man with a knife who’s already down is excessive

On qualified immunity, it’s been settled for a decade that shooting and killing a man with a knife when he’s already down for the first four shots would be excessive force under Zion v. County of Orange, 874 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2017). The dissent said Zion should be overruled. Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles, 21-55994 (9th Cir. June 2, 2025) (en banc).*

The district court didn’t decide qualified immunity here, but it was fully briefed and plaintiff waived response to the defense motion for summary judgment. The officers get qualified immunity here. Paz v. Hayden, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13960 (5th Cir. June 6, 2025).*

Defendant’s place was searched based on a search warrant related to his activities at the Capitol on January 6th. He was found to be a felon in possession of a firearm. The pardon didn’t cover that. United States v. Meteer, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107944 (E.D. Tenn. June 6, 2025),* following United States v. Wilson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66399 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025), appeal pending, relief pending appeal denied 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9 en banc: It’s settled that shooting again a man with a knife who’s already down is excessive

D.Mass.: Pole camera law settled here, even if state court suggests it could differ somewhat

This court is bound by circuit authority from 2009 and 2022 en banc that pole camera surveillance is valid, even if this judge was sympathetic to the argument and the state court might rule differently. United States v. Crisostomo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107782 (D. Mass. June 6, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Pole cameras | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Pole camera law settled here, even if state court suggests it could differ somewhat

S.D.W.Va.: Paying “rent” in drugs is a business transaction didn’t give a REP here

Paying daily “rent” in drugs is a business transaction without standing. “Although Jackson was an overnight guest insofar as he slept on the couch in the living room, he told law enforcement officers in his interview that he paid McCallister in pills for the ability to stay there and otherwise supplied her with drugs. The transactional nature of the relationship indicates that Jackson may have been a business visitor; it is not clear that he and McCallister enjoyed the level of mutual trust inherent in a social relationship that would give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy within her home.” United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107978 (S.D. W. Va. June 6, 2025).

A statement in a search warrant affidavit that a box of ammunition could be seen inside a store plastic bag wasn’t shown to be false. “Clear enough” to see isn’t false. United States v. Hobson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106846 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2025).*

“In this case, officers received multiple 911 calls that there was an active shooter. The responding officers had objectively reasonable and particularized suspicion that the plaintiff committed or was committing a crime; they were allowed to detain him until the officers were able to determine if he had committed a crime. Plaintiff was detained only as long as it took the officers to determine he had not committed a crime. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation.” Tholley v. AAA Pediatrics, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104573 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2025).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonableness, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Paying “rent” in drugs is a business transaction didn’t give a REP here

CA9: No warrant required for CI to record def

No warrant was required for the CI to record defendant, following White (1971). United States v. Sudbury, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13921 (9th Cir. June 6, 2025).

The state can’t be compelled to seek to unseal the CI’s testimony for the search warrant here when that avenue was equally available to the defense. People v. Richards, 2025 NY Slip Op 03453 (4th Dept. June 6, 2025).*

“Here, the circumstances easily provided grounds for a Terry stop. At the suppression hearing, Tidwell and Miller each testified to being familiar with the smell of marijuana through his training. Each detective further testified that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from Santiago’s car when it entered the parking lot and that the smell intensified when Santiago opened his car door. The bodycam footage shows that Tidwell told Santiago that the car ‘reek[ed] of weed.’” United States v. Santiago, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13956 (6th Cir. June 6, 2025).*

Obtaining insurance records by subpoena for civil discovery was not unreasonable. The statute says subpoena or search warrant. Da Veiga v. Currie, 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14828 (L.A. Co. May 8, 2025).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters, Waiver | Comments Off on CA9: No warrant required for CI to record def

D.Alaska: Objection to only part of USMJ’s R&R is waiver of rest

Objection to the USMJ’s probable cause finding but not application of the good faith exception is waiver on the latter. United States v. Baldwin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106406 (D. Alaska June 4, 2025).

The legality of the protective sweep was irrelevant to the issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106330 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2025).*

Defendant service member’s wife searched his cell phone and found inappropriate pictures of her daughter. She turned the phone over, and this was a private search. The duration of the seizure issue wasn’t raised below so it’s waived. United States v. Harborth, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 436 (C.A.A.F. June 3, 2025).*

Petitioner shows justification for return of property that the government gave a contradictory response that it didn’t have it but apparently once did. Amadi v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107237 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2025).*

Posted in Private search, Protective sweep, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Objection to only part of USMJ’s R&R is waiver of rest

S.D.Tex.: If you’re moving to suppress, at least say what is to be suppressed

Defendant moves to suppress without saying what it is that should be suppressed. [So why not just find it moot?] Defendant raises a Franks challenge and a lack of probable cause. He doesn’t prevail on either. United States v. Alhemoud, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108115 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: If you’re moving to suppress, at least say what is to be suppressed

The Appeal: Strip Searches Have a Racist, Dehumanizing Legacy

The Appeal: Strip Searches Have a Racist, Dehumanizing Legacy by Christopher Blackwell & Sarah Sax (“Strip searches—the procedure that triggered this deadly encounter—represent a form of state-sanctioned violence with deep historical roots in American racial oppression. The practice of forcing people to disrobe and submit to bodily inspection directly echoes the dehumanizing treatment of enslaved people, who were regularly stripped naked and paraded in front of potential buyers. This historical connection is particularly salient given the disproportionate incarceration rates of Black Americans.”)

Posted in Strip search | Comments Off on The Appeal: Strip Searches Have a Racist, Dehumanizing Legacy

NJ: Entering curtilage to plant GPS device on car exceeded tracking warrant and was suppressed

Police had an otherwise valid warrant to install a tracking device on defendant’s vehicle but in a public place. Instead, they entered the curtilage to install it there. This warrant execution violated the Fourth Amendment and state constitution. The tracking warrant is suppressed; there is no good faith exception in New Jersey. “The top of the driveway where the subject vehicle was parked was part of the curtilage of defendant’s home and was thus constitutionally protected—a conclusion the State does not dispute.” “We emphasize that it does not matter that the State Police did not appreciate the constitutional significance of entering onto defendant’s residential property.” Also, there is no good faith exception in New Jersey. State v. Johnson, 2025 N.J. Super. LEXIS 40 (June 3, 2025).

2255 petitioner’s unfiled Fourth Amendment claim makes no sense. Earquhart v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2025).* (Not exactly, but close enough.)

2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by Stone so no CoA. Bradley v. Corrigan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13511 (6th Cir. June 2, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a gun defendant abandoned. United States v. Emerson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104983 (W.D. Okla. June 3, 2025).*

Posted in Curtilage, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NJ: Entering curtilage to plant GPS device on car exceeded tracking warrant and was suppressed

EFF: Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant

EFF: Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant by Matthew Guariglia (“New reporting has revealed that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is attempting to create the Intelligence Community’s Data Consortium–a centralized online marketplace where law enforcement and spy agencies can peruse and buy very personal digital data about you collected by data brokers. Not only is this a massive escalation of the deeply unjust data broker loophole: it’s also another repulsive signal that your privacy means nothing to the intelligence community.”)

Posted in Digital privacy | Comments Off on EFF: Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant

LA5: Off-duty officer feeling a bag was a search, but bag was abandoned

Defendant left a bag on the counter of a gym and went outside and acted suspicious. An off-duty officer was a customer. He felt the bag, feeling a gun. Then police were called. This qualified as a government search, but the bag was abandoned. State v. Pierce, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 1025 (La. App. 5 Cir June 2, 2025).

“[A]n invited guest who ‘drops by’ on a brief visit cannot show that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a residence.” In any event, there was an arrest warrant for defendant, and that justified the entry. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105154 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s efforts to distinguish furtive movement cases that led to his shooting only show that the law wasn’t clearly established, and that means qualified immunity. Benton v. Layton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13486 (4th Cir. June 3, 2025).*

State statute stating that the smell of marijuana alone can be the basis for a search doesn’t apply to offenses before its effective date, July 1, 2023. Cutchember v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 456 (June 2, 2025).*

Posted in Abandonment, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity, Search, Standing | Comments Off on LA5: Off-duty officer feeling a bag was a search, but bag was abandoned

CA4: GFE doesn’t save search that wasn’t even authorized by the SW

The cell phone warrant here only authorized its seizure, not its search. Therefore, the good faith exception doesn’t even apply to save the search. United States v. Ray, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13483 (4th Cir. June 3, 2025). In sum:

Continue reading
Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA4: GFE doesn’t save search that wasn’t even authorized by the SW

MO: Civil discovery is a due process issue, not 4A one

Civil discovery is a due process issue, not a Fourth Amendment one. The civil discovery here was reasonable. Neighborhood Legal Support of Kansas City v. Ontman, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 374 (June 3, 2025), citing State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Cowan, 203 S.W.2d 407, 409-10 (Mo. banc 1947).

The automobile exception requires only probable cause, and exigency is assumed. As for the apartment, police connected him to it “most days of the week” and there was nexus even 21 days after a shooting incident. United States v. MacEo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103792 (D. Minn. June 2, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for “not having a strategy” for the suppression hearing where the probable cause was the smell of marijuana coming from the car. When defendant pled guilty, he well knew it was a waiver of appeal because there was no conditional plea. Jasper v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104460 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 30, 2025).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Due process, Waiver | Comments Off on MO: Civil discovery is a due process issue, not 4A one

S.D.Ohio: Casting state court’s failure to follow 4A precedent more closely as a due process violation still Stone barred

2254 petitioner’s due process claim that the state court denied due process by not following precedent was barred by Stone. Allen v. Warden, SE. Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104131 (S.D. Ohio June 2, 2025).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging warrantless placing of a GPS on defendant’s vehicle where it had nothing to do with the case. Defendant’s DNA was taken as abandoned in a restaurant and then matched to the crime. That happened before the GPS device was placed. Burdick v. Bousch, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13280 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025).*

Probation and police searched defendant’s place for a handgun which wasn’t found. He was arrested anyway. Later, his girlfriend, aware that the police were concerned about a gun inside, found a locked gun case and turned it over to the police. They got a warrant to open the case. Turning over the gun was a private search. State v. Langley, 319 Neb. 67 (May 30, 2025).*

While other Florida appellate courts have held smell of marijuana alone not to be probable cause for a search, here there is more making probable cause. State v. Simpson, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 4138 (Fla. 6th DCA May 30, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell, Private search, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Casting state court’s failure to follow 4A precedent more closely as a due process violation still Stone barred