Defendant was made to leave the premises while a search occurred inside, and that was not a seizure of his person. United States v. Arcadipane, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82688 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2025).
Defendant, a sex offender on supervised release, was polygraphed because of unauthorized internet access. The polygrapher’s opinion he was not truthful, along with the evidence of a violation of conditions was reasonable suspicion of a violation, led to a search warrant for his computer. It was valid. United States v. Henning, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82683 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2025).*
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claims. United States v. Zubia-Melendez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10688 (5th Cir. May 2, 2025).*
Sovereign citizen’s Fourth Amendment complaint that officers unreasonably made her identify herself is frivolous. “There are so many reasons why this complaint must be dismissed that it is hard to know where to begin. Because the legal theories are indisputably meritless, the Court will begin (and end) there.” Miller v. Ariz. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83841 (D. Ariz. May 1, 2025).*
A radio dispatch of a suspicious vehicle on an apartment complex’s lot was so broad as to be meaningless. The trial court erred in relying on it. When the officer pulled up on the car, two occupants in the back seat fled. Without more to connect the driver to them, that can’t be reasonable suspicion either. The lateness of the hour (2 am) also isn’t material. The fact the vehicle backed up in its parking space with a back door left open isn’t material either. On the totality, it doesn’t add up to reasonable suspicion. In re R.W., 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 99 (May 1, 2025). [This is close to the “divide and conquer” analysis rejected in Arvizu because the individual pieces are not actually “added up,” but discussed, rejected, and then looked at in their totality to conclude “still no reasonable suspicion.” I don’t see this one going to SCOTUS. All things considered, it’s too thin anyway.]
“When Officer Rees initially approached defendant, he testified that he was concerned for her safety, given the late hour and the fact that she was walking a bike with a suitcase, a box, and a bag. At that time, defendant had not been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Farber, supra. After speaking to defendant, however, Officer Rees noticed an unusual protrusion under her shirt. When he asked defendant what was there, she stated that it was her bra, although he observed, and the bodycam video reveals, something else. Officer Rees also testified that defendant was sweating profusely. At this point, Officer Rees had reasonable suspicion of potential criminal activity, warranting a pat-down for officer safety.” State v. Butler, 2025 La. App. LEXIS 757 (La. App. 5 Cir Apr. 29, 2025).*
Continuation of a commercial moving truck stop for a safety inspection was reasonable after there were “paperwork discrepancies.” People v. Ivanchuk, 2025 IL App (4th) 241230, 2025 Ill. App. LEXIS 856 (May 1, 2025).
Mere negligent omissions for a Franks violation don’t state a claim. Johnson v. Staab, 2025 COA 45, 2025 Colo. App. LEXIS 537 (May 1, 2025).
Defendant passed the trooper in the opposite lane, and he immediately pulled over, stopped, and turned off his lights. It was reasonable for the officer to go check under the community caretaking function. State v. Robinson, 2025-Ohio-1539 (4th Dist. Apr. 22, 2025).*
When defendant is seeking medical records for the defense, he must show an essential need. State v. Zarella, 2025 N.H. LEXIS 112 (May 1, 2025).*
There were multiple military search authorizations, and the request here was orally supplemented before issuance expanding the particularity. Also, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Johnson, 2025 CCA LEXIS 193 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 2, 2025).
A child porn investigation opened in West Virginia because of a foreign law enforcement agency finding defendant accessing it on the dark web. He wasn’t entitled to discovery of how all that happened, it wasn’t a search, and that information was usable to get a warrant. United States v. Dugan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10539 (4th Cir. May 1, 2025).
An attempted seizure is not a seizure. Taylor v. Prince George’s Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10536 (4th Cir. May 1, 2025).
This first time CI, arrested the day before, was corroborated and there was probable cause. United States v. Schelling, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83754 (D. Neb. May 2, 2025).*
There was reasonable suspicion with collective knowledge, and the search warrant was not based on illegal police activity. United States v. Foster, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83747 (D. Neb. May 2, 2025).*
Dispatch report of a warrant on defendant justified his search incident to arrest. The officer could rely on it in good faith. State v. Matics, 2025-Ohio-1588 (5th Dist. May 1, 2025).*
There was probable cause. “But even if the affidavit contained false statements, Mosley accuses the affiant of ‘knowingly misrepresent[ing] material facts’ without any proof. [24] at 1. He fails to accompany this conclusory accusation with any affidavits or witness statements, and he does not explain his failure to provide them. See id. at 1-9; see also Franks, 438 U.S. at 171.” United States v. Mosley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83940 (S.D. Miss. May 2, 2025).*
Carpenter creates no protection for ISP subscriber information. No Due Process rights were violated though a § 1509 summons. United States v. Meyrand, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84060 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2025).*
This court declined to abandon the automobile exception in favor of electronic warrants seven years ago, and things haven’t changed. State v. McClain, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 50 (May 2, 2025).*
Defendant’s Rule 41(g) motion for return of property is denied because there’s a pending criminal case involving it. United States v. Xian Long Ruan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84013 (W.D. Okla. May 2, 2025).*
Defendant’s post-conviction particularity claim was essentially resolved on direct appeal, so no ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Hudson, 2025 Del. Super. LEXIS 219 (Apr. 30, 2025).*
“Defendant argues that the warrant is facially deficient because the affidavit lacked a signature, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Gordon, 686 F. App’x 702, 704 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that ‘even if the issuing magistrate judge failed to administer an oath or affirmation, the evidence was admissible because the detective acted in good faith and objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant’).” United States v. Morris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83096 (N.D. Ala. May 1, 2025).
The trial court erred in finding defendant had no standing to challenge this seizure of cash from his rental car. He was the only one in it, and the exclusionary rule still applies in forfeiture cases, if the stop and search were illegal. Remanded. State ex rel. Kansas Highway Patrol v. $381,620 in United States Currency, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 19 (May 2, 2025).*
The car’s smell of marijuana and the occupants denying a medical marijuana card was probable cause. United States v. Woods, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84301 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2025).*
NCIC can’t be sued for a Bivens claim. Vanness v. Glass, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84179 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2025).*
The search warrant application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause.” They are interchangeable. United States v. Tundo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84283 (W.D.N.Y. May 2, 2025).
Four months of pole camera surveillance on the front of a business and its parking lot was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Goins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84410 (W.D. Va. May 2, 2025).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails on its offer of proof. There’s no showing that the officer had knowledge of the omitted thing and then with a purpose to mislead. United States v. Goins, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84417 (W.D. Va. May 2, 2025).*
This Franks challenge fails because the information complained about isn’t material to probable cause. United States v. Negron, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84311 (N.D. Ga. May 2, 2025).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Pole cameras, Probable cause|Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: SW application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause”
The company here refused an OSHA administrative inspection, so OSHA got an administrative warrant. Then the company moved to quash. Citing In re Anthony Marano Company, 556 F. Supp. 3d 890 (N.D. Ill. 2021), the court holds there is no action to stay enforcement of an administrative warrant before execution. United States v. OSHA Inspection Warrant, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82911 (D.N.J. May 1, 2025).
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t provide a cause of action for alleged destruction of personal property by guards in jail. Stone v. Good Old Boys Domestic Terrorists’ Org., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83043 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 30, 2025).*
The lack of a criminal complaint when defendant was arrested doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause. United States v. Sole, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83003 (N.D. Ind. May 1, 2025).*
The Fourth Circuit dodges deciding the merits of geofence warrants by going with good faith in a per curiam virtually summary affirmance with 124 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions. Having heard the excellent, spirited oral argument, this was where it was going. It’s always easier to decide good faith than the merits, and the law remains murky. The question has to be decided sometime, or was that the point of Leon? United States v. Chatrie, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (en banc).
CNS: Fourth Circuit kicks can on constitutionality of geofence warrants by Joe Dodson (“Some of the circuit judges expressed frustration with the en banc panel’s unwillingness to address whether accessing location history through Google violates a person’s right to privacy.”)
techpolicy: Reverse Keyword Search Warrants and the Threat to Online Privacy by Abigail Zislis (“Online privacy rights, already limited in the United States, face new threats from the advent of reverse keyword search warrants. In recent years, local and federal law enforcement have become increasingly reliant upon reverse keyword search warrants as an investigative digital dragnet tool to compel Google and other major search engine companies to furnish the personal information of users who have conducted a search query related to a crime. Known for their overbreadth and lack of precision, keyword warrants pull data on all users who have searched a set of keywords, including terms or phrases, during a set timeframe and, possibly, within a defined geographic area, and then work backward to investigate and identify potential leads or criminal suspects. Because these invasive dragnet requests are more than constitutionally suspect and can have serious implications for the civil rights and liberties of US internet users, they ought to be strictly regulated at the federal level.”)
Officers went to New Hampshire on a criminal investigation for a Massachusetts crime, and they ended up seizing defendant’s cell phone to preserve evidence, bringing it back to Massachusetts where it was searched. The common law power of citizen’s arrest doesn’t apply to property seizures. As to the conflict of laws question, the Massachusetts exclusionary rule would apply, not New Hampshire’s. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 201 (Apr. 25, 2025).
In a hate crime prosecution, the government showed probable cause to search for defendant’s car and cell phones located in it. There were social media postings after the alleged crime. The good faith exception applies in any event. A camcorder seized under that warrant was outside the particularity showing, but the government won’t be using it at trial. United States v. Bernard, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78398 (D. Colo. Apr. 24, 2025).*
The cell phone warrant obtained by Postal Inspectors was based on probable cause and was reasonable and not general. Pictures on the phone linked defendant to several crimes. United States v. Hughes, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78174 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2025).*
A search warrant is about whether evidence would be found in the place to be searched, not whether there’s an offender. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10138 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025).
2255 petitioner’s Franks ineffective assistance of counsel claim was speculative and denied. Key v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79312 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2025).*
Defendant was a guest at a friend’s place, and his car was to be towed from the driveway because it wasn’t properly licensed. The dog sniff while waiting for the tow truck was reasonable, and the area wasn’t curtilage. United States v. Contreras, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79325 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2025).*
CSLI obtained in 2013 was with good faith. United States v. Age, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9947 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025).*
Posted inImmigration arrests|Comments Off on Reason: Justice Department Memo Claims Alien Enemies Act Allows Warrantless Home Searches and No Judicial Review
When relying on a parole search exception, the state does not have to put the specific document into evidence. Here, also, defendant was transferred on parole from Texas to Illinois. People v. Pyles, 2025 IL App (4th) 240220, 2025 Ill. App. LEXIS 824 (Apr. 25, 2025).
Asking the passenger or driver to roll down the rear window during a traffic stop to talk to the passenger was for officer safety and was reasonable. United States v. Camas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79554 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025).*
The trial court was free to credit the officer’s testimony defendant crossed the white lines on the road without there being a dashcam video. State v. Duncan, 2025-Ohio-1504 (4th Dist. Apr. 15, 2025).*
The Postal Inspector here had reasonable suspicion based on the names not matching the addresses on a package to remove it from the mail stream for a blind dog sniff. United States v. Bey, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10024 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025).*
The government seized seven years of defendants’ email records in 2022 but the FBI’s computer somehow lost it. So they re-searched the data in 2024. “The Government asserts that it accessed the full return of data received pursuant to the 2022 Gmail Warrant again in 2024 in an attempt to re-create the responsiveness report the FBI had first generated in 2022.” The court finds the 2022 warrant didn’t cover the 2024 search of the data. However, “The good faith exception does not apply to the Government’s 2024 search.” Inevitable discovery may apply because of a search of email through a 2024 home warrant. That question is reserved for now. United States v. Sun, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80278 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2025):
The New York Times is granted access to the search warrant materials in the Eric Adams case. It satisfied the standards for common law access. Some limited redactions are permitted. United States v. Adams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79178 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2025).
The officer was in hot pursuit of defendant for felony fleeing, and his entry was reasonable. Newman v. Underhill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9655 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2025).
The pretrial taking of defendant’s DNA was reasonable. People v. Torres, 2025 NY Slip Op 50594(U), 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2634 (Kings Co. Apr. 21, 2025).*
Officers responded to an assault call, and came to the only house matching the description for a knock-and-talk. They approached from the normal path, and that was reasonable. United States v. Rivers, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9969 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025).*
Despite there being backup at the scene, the protective sweep here is valid. United States v. Antley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78961 (D.R.I. Apr. 25, 2025).
The controlled buy gave probable cause for search under the automobile exception. United States v. Rogers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78935 (D. Conn. Apr. 25, 2025).*
“The Government urges the Court to consider the following factors in assessing reasonable suspicion: Defendant’s presence in high narcotic trafficking location with citizen complaints to law enforcement regarding illegal activity; that the officers were responding to an activated panic alarm; Defendant’s evasive action as the officers arrived at the scene; and Sergeant Berg’s observations of the shop owner and employee acting nervously, positioning themselves away from Defendant, asking the officers for help, and telling them that Defendant had a gun and was arguing with one of them. … The Court finds that reasonable suspicion existed for the stop.” United States v. Diaz-Rojas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78906 (D.N.J. Apr. 25, 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.
