Defendant got high and fell asleep on the couch, and he was there when the raid occurred. He didn’t have standing. United States v. Taylor, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103820 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2025).
The government’s motion to reconsider is denied. The inventory of defendant’s backpack violated the Fourth Amendment because there was no explanation of the policy or why. United States v. States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103814 (N.D. Ohio June 2, 2025).*
Plaintiff did not plausibly allege a civil rights conspiracy between Greyhound bus lines and the government in Albuquerque where he was arrested on a Greyhound bus that Greyhound’s employees let him on. Fernandez v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13327 (10th Cir. June 2, 2025).*
Omission of “some exculpatory evidence” from the affidavit for search warrant didn’t undermine the probable cause that was shown. Affiants don’t have to produce everything. Honesto v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3727 (Tex. App. – El Paso May 30, 2025).*
Posted inInventory, Private search, Probable cause, Standing|Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Visitor getting high and passing out on couch doesn’t give standing to challenge search of premises
For landlords to get relief from the 1974 NYS rent stabilization laws, they have to provide some records. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Hudson Shore Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. New York, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13349 (2d Cir. June 2, 2025):
Case v. Montana, 24-624 (granted June 2, 2025). Question presented: “Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.”
Posted inEmergency / exigency, SCOTUS|Comments Off on Cert. granted: Case v. Montana on emergency entries into the home without PC
Defendant’s protective sweep argument changed from the district court to appeal, so the argument urged here is waived. Below he argued the protective sweep was unreasonably extended but here it’s whether it should have occurred at all. United States v. Riley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13289 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025).
Plaintiff’s complaint against her state prosecution is barred by Rooker-Feldman. Al-Ameen v. City of Valdosta, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102761 (M.D. Ga. May 30, 2025).
Police reports attached to a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss weren’t subject to judicial notice because they only referred to part of the incident and not all of it, and the opponent here didn’t have an opportunity to object. Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13215 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025).*
Three officers on bike patrol stopped at a park bench where defendant was talking to a 13 year old girl. He was seized without reasonable suspicion by the way they parked in front of him and interrogated him. State v. Hintze, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 84 (May 30, 2025) (this is the third appeal of this case).*
There was no recording of the showing of probable cause for this state warrant that became a part of a federal prosecution. The lack of a recording isn’t fatal to the showing of probable cause found by the issuing magistrate under the Fourth Amendment, no matter what state law says. With eight arrest warrants for defendant, the police also obtained real time location data for him, and that was also reasonable. And, “Even if the warrants were invalid, the Court has no reason to believe that the police deliberately, recklessly, or grossly negligently disregarded the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Cox, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103449 (E.D. Va. May 30, 2025).
Omission of “some exculpatory evidence” from the affidavit for search warrant didn’t undermine the probable cause that was shown. Honesto v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3727 (Tex. App. – El Paso 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).*
The anonymous tip plus a bit more was reasonable suspicion for a probation search here. United States v. Garrett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102836 (E.D. Wis. May 30, 2025).*
Media Matters stated a claim in D.C. for First Amendment retaliation by the Texas Attorney General’s civil investigative demand for records based on not liking their reporting. Injunction affirmed. Media Matters for America v. Paxton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13155 (D.C. Cir. May 30, 2025).
Based on the video, defendant consented to the search. United States v. Guerrero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103051 (D. Kan. May 30, 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. The turning over the gun was a private search. State v. Langley, 319 Neb. 67 (May 30, 2025).*
When two officers have separate probable cause to search, they don’t need separate search warrants, as long as the description covers their purpose. At least qualified immunity applies here. Fitzpatrick v. Hanney, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13214 (6th Cir. May 30, 2025):
Officers went into defendant’s backyard with a drug dog and that unreasonably invaded the curtilage. United States v. Holland, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102751 (N.D. Fla. May 30, 2025):
Reading a prisoner’s legal mail may violate the First Amendment, but he can’t show that it violated the Fourth Amendment because there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in prison and nothing interfered with his cases. Lewis v. Conway, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101995 (D. Or. May 1, 2025), quoting Bhin Tran v. Webb, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240264 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022), dismissed, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232887 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2024), Lund v. CDCR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137570 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2022), Johnson v. Noack, 2018 WL 3340876, at *10 (D. Or. July 6, 2018).
Defendant’s spouse had apparent authority to consent to search of a hidden cell phone she was told to look for that wasn’t on their joint phone plan. When CID was handed the phone and the passcode, they didn’t know anything about its being hidden. CID reasonably believed that she had common authority over the phone to consent. The search was limited to “location data” about where defendant might be, and child pornography was found in the meantime. The search was reasonable. United States v. Brinkman-Coronel, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 420 (C.A.A.F. May 28, 2025).
The challenged statements were overstatements but not baseless, and that didn’t form the basis for a Franks challenge. State v. Hay, 2025 R.I. LEXIS 53 (May 29, 2025).*
The probable cause showing was thin, but it was enough, and the good faith exception applies in any event. United States v. Mills, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102174 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2025)*:
Defendant had managerial control over the business property searched enough that he had standing to challenge its search. The security sweep of the second floor was not reasonable and, to the USMJ, “ma[de] no sense”; there was no articulable reason for it. Search of a seized DVD player was fruit of the poisonous tree. “[T]he Court concludes that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply. It does not have a ‘high level of confidence’ that each of the contingencies asserted by the Government would have occurred, and that the evidence would have been lawfully recovered, absent the constitutional violation described above.” The exclusionary rule applies. United States v. Burgin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102324 (W.D. N.Y. May 29, 2025):
NYT: Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans by Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik (“In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power. Mr. Trump has not publicly talked about the effort since. But behind the scenes, officials have quietly put technological building blocks into place to enable his plan. In particular, they have turned to one company: Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm.”)
Posted inDigital privacy|Comments Off on NYT: Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans
Reason: Illinois Cops Gave ICE Access to More Than 5,000 Surveillance Cameras Nationwide by Autumn Billings (“A public records request from the Danville, Illinois, police department obtained by 404 Media revealed that local and state police around the country searched automatic license plate reader (ALPR) camera data more than 4,000 times for immigration related reasons between June 1, 2024, and May 5, 2025. Despite an Illinois law prohibiting the use of ALPR data for immigration enforcement, these records suggest that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has informally gained access to camera networks across more than 5,000 communities nationwide. The technology provider in question, Flock Safety, has over 40,000 ALPR cameras across the United States that use artificial intelligence to constantly record the plates, color, and make of passing vehicles.”)
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on Reason: Illinois Cops Gave ICE Access to More Than 5,000 Surveillance Cameras Nationwide
Defendant’s Franks motion fails because the government can justify a warrantless search of the vehicle under the automobile exception. United States v. Childs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101370 (D.N.J. May 28, 2025).
Plaintiff’s false arrest claim isn’t barred by Heck, but it is by statute of limitations. Allen v. Faulk, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100726 (S.D. Ind. May 27, 2025).*
Defendant passenger in a car was not seized when he fled in response to the officer’s show of authority. United States v. Bellomy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100547 (E.D. Ky. May 28, 2025).*
Whether the state officer violated state law in arresting defendant wasn’t the question. He’s in federal court so the Fourth Amendment governs and the arrest was with probable cause. United States v. Stewart, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (E.D. Ky. May 28, 2025).*
The drug dog’s instinctive jump into the window of defendant’s car wasn’t initiated by the handler, so it wasn’t unreasonable. State v. Barton, 2025-Ohio-1904 (1st Dist. May 28, 2025) (2-1).
“As already discussed, Parr had reason to believe Defendant was smuggling drugs into Wichita not on the basis of an inarticulable hunch, but because of the following observations: (1) the owner of the truck was not present, (2) Defendant recently sold the truck to his youngest brother, (3) Defendant needlessly volunteered information, (4) his responses were at times nonsensical and contradictory, and (5) because he had recently stopped a nearly identical truck with a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. Therefore, the court concludes that Parr lawfully extended the traffic stop when he initiated an investigation into whether Defendant was smuggling drugs to Wichita.” United States v. Barrios, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100921 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025).*
Defendant’s appellate ineffective assistance claim fails. It’s a rehash of the argument already rejected with a few new inconsequential details and wouldn’t change the result. State v. Haslam, 2025-Ohio-1910 (7th Dist. May 16, 2025).*
Defendant’s live-in girlfriend consented to a search of their apartment when he was arrested and removed. He can’t invoke Randolph because he never objected. United States v. Lee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100923 (D. Kan. May 28, 2025).
Defendant’s refusal to accede to a DNA search was used against him in state court, but it was: (a) not shown an “unreasonable application” by the state court under § 2254(d) and (b) was harmless in any event. Balassa v. Gamboa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101285 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2025).*
The officer’s decision to stop a car in a left turn only lane for not signaling the turn was an an a reasonable application of the law. Denial of motion to suppress reversed. Anderson v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 425 (May 27, 2025) (unpublished).*
The attachments to the warrant made it particular. United States v. Bussey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101046 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 4, 2025).*
Posted inConsent, Particularity, Privileges|Comments Off on D.Kan.: Can invoke Randolph objection to consent without objecting
FinCEN’s Southwest Border Geographic Targeting Order (SWB GTO) for enhanced reporting requirements in certain zip codes appears to have been adopted without proper authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Fourth Amendment claim is deferred until later as unnecessary at this point. Novedades v. Fin. Crimes Enf’t Network, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101156 (S.D. Cal. May 21, 2025).*
Franks challenge to CSLI warrant fails: “Valentin has failed to show that the statements regarding what the surveillance footage showed were inaccurate, much less reflective of deliberate or reckless falsehood. Valentin has failed to show that the statements in the affidavit do not reflect events that Officer Bonacarti observed on in-store video—but that simply were not captured on the video agents downloaded. As to mens rea, even if it were posited that Officer Bonacarti actually misrepresented the contents of the video he reviewed in the store, Valentin has failed to show that Ford acted with reckless disregard for the truth or deliberately lied when he incorporated Officer Bonacarti’s statements into his search warrant affidavit.” United States v. Valentin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101280 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 2025).*
Defendant doesn’t get released pretrial. His reference to “emerging Fourth Amendment jurisprudence” doesn’t show the court he’s likely to prevail on his suppression motion, and, if he doesn’t, the proof is overwhelming against him. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101262 (D.D.C. May 23, 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.
