Defendant filed a motion in limine in lieu of a motion to suppress which was otherwise out of time. A motion in limine isn’t a substitute for a motion to suppress. Nevertheless, the court goes to the merits of the search claim and finds for the government. The search was valid as an inventory. United States v. Romero, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55762 (D. Alaska Mar. 26, 2025).
Plaintiff cites three cases that he says show the officer used excessive force, but none of them is close enough on the facts to make it “clearly established law” for qualified immunity. Martinez v. Harris County, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7023 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2025).*
Defendant’s claim in the briefs that the cell phone was hers isn’t supported by the evidence, so no standing. United States v. Lussier, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55795 (D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2025).*
Defendant’s traffic stop was valid because of a traffic offense and because collective knowledge showed he was suspected of possessing drugs. United States v. Solomon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55777 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s 242 paragraph § 1983 complaint calls into question his criminal conviction, so it’s barred by Heck. Turner v. Kansas Court of Appeals, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55052 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2025).*
“Here, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful imprisonment and ‘failure to investigate’ § 1983 claims are rooted in the alleged impropriety of his probation violation proceedings. Heck prevents these claims from passing go.” Williams v. Macomb Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55241 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2025).*
“This is, in other words, a context-dependent excessive force case in which the unconstitutionality of Hines’s conduct must be established, not through highlevel legal principles, but through specific facts from analogous case law. … Yet Thomas—on whom lies the burden of showing that qualified immunity does not apply—has failed to identify a single factually analogous case that could have given Hines ‘fair warning’ that his conduct in arresting Thomas was unconstitutional. … And the factually analogous case law that the Court has found—for example, Buckley, Charles, and Woodruff—indicates the opposite, that Hines’s use of force was objectively reasonable. Thomas has therefore failed to show that Hines is not entitled to qualified immunity, and Hines is accordingly entitled to judgment on Thomas’s Fourth Amendment claim as a matter of law.” Thomas v. Hines, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53369 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2025).*
Plaintiff’s alleged false arrest by CBP near the border was a new Bivens claim and rejected. Romero v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54301 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025).*
Summary judgment for the officer was properly denied because of questions of material fact. Savage v. Segura, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6883 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025).*
In a Terry frisk where a weapon is reasonably suspected, the officer has the authority to seize it until he knows what’s going on. Commonwealth v. Crowder, 2025 Mass. LEXIS 130 (Mar. 25, 2025):
“The fact that the Government intends to prove that the property belongs to Defendant does not establish standing. See, United States v. Watson, 404 F.3d 163, 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (‘[D]efendant could not challenge the search of a residence merely because he anticipated that the Government will link the objects recovered in that search to defendant at trial.’); United States v. Tartaglione, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32382, 2023 WL 2237903, at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023) (‘The Government’s efforts to connect a defendant to the subject of a search do not suffice to establish standing.’)” United States v. Rodriguez-Genao, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54287 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2025).
Flight is not per se suspicious, but officers had reasonable suspicion here when they approached him. One said they had a warrant for his arrest, but didn’t. Whether this was a mistake or a lie doesn’t matter here because there was reasonable suspicion. Defendant fled and was finally tackled and apprehended. United States v. Hamilton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).*
Just because defendant was in custody doesn’t mean he couldn’t consent to a search. State v. Ellis, 2025-Ohio-1014 (11th Dist. Mar. 24, 2025).*
An overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard. United States v. Halley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53342 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025).
Even if there was a false statement in the affidavit for search warrant, it wasn’t material to the finding of probable cause. Franks hearing denied. United States v. Kovacic, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53480 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2025).*
Some of evidence here was discovered before any illegality, so the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t apply to that. The trial court erred in dismissing the whole case. State v. Brinson, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 2267 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 21, 2025).*
2254 petitioner’s claim that admission at trial of the affidavit for warrant violated the Confrontation Clause is instead subject to harmless error analysis under the unreasonable application standard. Even if true, it was harmless as a whole. Stallings v. Chase, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6804 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).*
Cell phone found in the car of one reasonably believed to be a drug dealer was searched by a warrant that was particular and with probable cause. United States v. Chambers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53490 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2025)*:
The affiant’s omission of the CI’s criminal history was only negligent and didn’t undermine the probable cause showing. United States v. Francis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6795 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).
Some of evidence here was discovered before any illegality, so the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t apply to that. The trial court erred in dismissing the whole case. State v. Brinson, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 2267 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 21, 2025).*
Flight is not per se suspicious, but officers had reasonable suspicion here when they approached him. One said they had a warrant for his arrest, but didn’t. Whether this was a mistake or a lie doesn’t matter here because there was reasonable suspicion. Defendant fled and was finally tackled and apprehended. United States v. Hamilton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025).*
The contents of a closed shoebox were not in plain view. Commonwealth v. Herlth, 2025 PA Super 73, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 138 (Mar. 24, 2025).
“In sum, the evidence before the Court shows that the PGPD and the FBI improperly obtained and retained certain electronic evidence from Defendant Owen’s iPhone and iCloud account that exceeds the temporal scope of the February 19, 2020, State Warrant. But the evidence also shows that the Government did not flagrantly disregard the temporal scope of this warrant in connection with its investigation of this matter. And so, the Court will suppress the electronic evidence seized from Defendant Owen’s iPhone and iCloud Data account via the February 19, 2020, State Warrant that pre-dates January 1, 2020.” United States v. D’Haiti, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52042 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2025).*
Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment. Police had probable cause that the defendant had committed a crime and that contraband would be found in the apartment, and there was a risk that evidence could be destroyed while obtaining a warrant. The court also found that the search warrant application established probable cause by stating that the large quantity of fentanyl found on the defendant was packaged consistent with drug sales, and that drug dealers commonly use residences to store drugs. People v. Parrilla, 2025 NY Slip Op 01761 (4th Dept. Mar. 21, 2025).*
The immediately apparent prong of plain view requires probable cause for being apparent. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52652 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 30, 2025), adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50975 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2025).
“In this appeal by permission, we consider whether the investigating detective’s opening statement to appellant Keith Lamar Foster (Foster) that he was not a suspect, when in fact the detective had already obtained a search warrant for his DNA, so misrepresented the nature of their interaction as to render Foster’s subsequent statement involuntary under the totality of the circumstances test prescribed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We agree with the Superior Court that, under the circumstances present here, the misrepresentation, itself, did not outweigh the non-coercive, voluntary nature of the interview. In other words, we hold that a misrepresentation to an interviewee that he is not a suspect, when in fact police consider him a suspect, does not, per se, transform a voluntary statement into an involuntary one under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.” Commonwealth v. Foster, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 396 (Mar. 20, 2025).*
Plaintiff admitted on the bodycam video that his stop was essentially valid, so that eliminates that factual dispute. McClain v. Delgado, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6558 (5th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025).*
71-day delay in getting search warrant to access defendant’s cell phone was reasonable where the delay was attributed to waiting for a software update for their device because the iPhone was a newer model. United States v. Powell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6590 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025).*
“We determine that Tate failed to preserve error on his argument that ‘the magistrate failed to make credibility determinations in the order granting the search warrant concerning the confidential informant.’ We therefore affirm without reaching the merits of Tate’s appeal.” State v. Tate, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 257 (Mar. 19, 2025).*
Appellant lost his Franks challenge below and then pled guilty without a conditional plea. He wouldn’t have won any appeal of the Franks challenge. United States v. Petitfrere, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50957 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2025).*
Exhibit A to the search warrant wasn’t present at the search so the officers didn’t know all that was seized. Here, plain view carries the search anyway. United States v. Gilmore, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6581 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025).*
Courthouse News Service: Obscurity shrouds state court rulings by Bill Girdner (“Rulings and judgments in state courts are falling into obscurity. A simple filter would open that work product to public view.”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Courthouse News Service: Obscurity shrouds state court rulings
Defendant’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house. United States v. Arthur, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51621 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 20, 2025).
Defendant failed to plead standing in his motion to suppress despite the court seeking it. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51595 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50702 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2025).*
“It was Peek’s burden to demonstrate standing, but the conflicting evidence in the record simply does not support finding that Peek has demonstrated that he had the permission of the owner of the white Honda to use the vehicle and was in lawful possession of the vehicle when he was stopped.” However, even if he had standing, he loses on the merits. United States v. Peek, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51594 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50721 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2025).*
Plain view of a firearm in the house where police were executing an arrest warrant was reasonable. United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50975 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2025).*
Posted inConsent, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing|Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Def’s agreement to let police see his firearm isn’t implied consent to enter his house
This documents warrant was particular. While it sought a lot of information, that alone didn’t make it overbroad. It was also limited in time to six months of information. People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz, 2025 COA 30 (Mar. 20, 2025):
NYTimes: 23andMe Files for Bankruptcy Amid Concerns About Security of Customers’ Genetic Data by Yan Zhuang (“The genetic testing company 23andMe filed for bankruptcy protection on Sunday after months of uncertainty over its business model and mounting concerns about the security of the troves of customer data it holds. In a statement, 23andMe said it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to ‘facilitate a sale process to maximize the value of its business’ and make further cost reductions. Anne Wojcicki, chief executive of 23andMe, announced that she had resigned in order to bid on the company.”)
WaPo: Delete your DNA from 23andMe right now (“The genetic information company declared bankruptcy on Sunday, and California’s attorney general has issued a privacy ‘consumer alert.’”)
Posted inDNA|Comments Off on NYTimes: 23andMe Files for Bankruptcy Amid Concerns About Security of Customers’ Genetic Data
Officers approached defendant’s house for a knock-and-talk at 10:43 pm. There is no implied license to enter the curtilage at that time, but here it was because officers were responding to a report of a dangerous situation, and that made it reasonable. People v. ASK, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 2161 (Mar. 19, 2025) (unpublished):
Posted inCurtilage, Knock and talk, Nighttime search|Comments Off on MI: Nighttime entry onto curtilage was reasonable because officers were responding to a dangerous situation
Asking the same question of defendant a different way three times while doing the traffic citation did not unreasonably prolong the stop. The officer said he was not trying to be “robotic” sounding. United States v. Burns, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50996 (D. Neb. Mar. 20, 2025).
CI’s controlled buy from plaintiff’s home supported probable cause for his arrest, and this § 1983 case was properly disposed of on summary judgment, despite the fact he spent 19 months in jail and the criminal case was dismissed. His Franks claim based on speculation of a conspiracy to frame him fails. Rainey v. Lewis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6500 (7th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025).*
Patdown producing cash after finding drugs during traffic stop was reasonable as search incident. Clemons v. State, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 244 (Mar. 19, 2025).*
The affidavit for warrant established the CI’s reliability and basis of knowledge. State v. Barnes, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 248 (Mar. 19, 2025).*
Officers saw defendant “dissecting a motor vehicle in his driveway,” i.e., running a chop shop, which they already suspected him of. They could enter the curtilage to inquire. Commonwealth v. Ewida, 2025 PA Super 67, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 128 (Mar. 20, 2025).
There is a presumption that there was probable cause for a search warrant, and defendant doesn’t show this one was lacking. Moreover, “The defendant has failed to provide any evidence to indicate, let alone establish, that the officers did not act in good faith in obtaining the search warrants of March 26 and April 5, 2024 and executing them.” United States v. Bailey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50460 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2025).*
Texas consent must be by clear and convincing evidence, and this wasn’t. “Despite the fact that the investigative detention had concluded without finding any weapons or contraband, the two investigating officers did not move. They were both within arm’s reach, if not closer, of appellant, restraining his movement and preventing him from turning around before he was asked to consent to a search of his person. They forced his hands on the hood of the vehicle. The situation, like that in Carmouche, would not have led a reasonable person to conclude the search was optional.” Madas v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1863 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Mar. 20, 2025).*
Posted inConsent, Curtilage, Probable cause|Comments Off on PA: Entry of curtilage to inquire of a chop shop in operation was reasonable
Under a parole search of one Scott in his home, the PO had authority to frisk the visitor defendant if he had safety concerns or reasonable suspicion, and here they did not. Commonwealth v. Gibson, 2025 PA Super 65, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 127 (Mar. 19, 2025).
Defendant’s claim the stop was prolonged without reasonable suspicion fails. There was a warrant for his arrest. United States v. Rainey, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6452 (6th Cir. Mar. 19, 2025).*
As to a Franks claim: “As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Petitfrere’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because he has not alleged any facts suggesting that his attorney’s performance was deficient nor shown that he was prejudiced by such performance.” United States v. Petitfrere, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49841 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 19, 2025).*
A threat to arrest for trespass doesn’t state a Fourth Amendment claim. Kelly v. Gallagher, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49905 (D. Ariz. Mar. 18, 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.
