CA5: Stay of § 1983 shooting case was properly denied pending state criminal case

Plaintiff was charged in state court and sued under § 1983 in federal court over his shooting by the police. The federal court refused a stay and plaintiff ended up taking the Fifth. The denial of the stay of the civil case was not an abuse of discretion. Langiano v. City of Fort Worth, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5638 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on CA5: Stay of § 1983 shooting case was properly denied pending state criminal case

NPR: A little-known law is in the spotlight: What to know about the Privacy Act of 1974

NPR: A little-known law is in the spotlight: What to know about the Privacy Act of 1974 by Kathryn Fink, Ailsa Chang & Jeanette Woods (“The Privacy Act of 1974 protects personal information collected across federal agencies. Privacy groups and attorneys are invoking it to block access to personal records by DOGE.”)

Posted in Informational privacy | Comments Off on NPR: A little-known law is in the spotlight: What to know about the Privacy Act of 1974

CA8: Dog sniff at apt door was reasonable under existing precedent

A drug dog sniff at defendant’s apartment door was reasonable under well-established circuit precedent. There’s no evidence the dog’s nose went under the door. United States v. Peck, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5710 (8th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025).

Plaintiff’s condition of having a stroke during arrest wasn’t obvious, so the officers get some qualified immunity. D’Braunstein v. California Highway Patrol, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5735 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025).* Metropolitan News-Enterprise: Ninth Circuit Revives Suit Against CHP Officer Over Misdiagnosing Stroke as Intoxication

Summary judgment was erroneous in an excessive force case where the credibility of witnesses was everything. Rose v. Farney, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5738 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025).*

Defendant’s probation Fourth Amendment waiver was mentioned at his sentencing, and it’s binding. Muniz v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 129 (Mar. 12, 2025).*

Posted in Curtilage, Dog sniff, Excessive force, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA8: Dog sniff at apt door was reasonable under existing precedent

OR: Petr’s post-conviction 4A denied for lack of specifics and context

Defendant’s post-conviction Fourth Amendment claim was properly denied for not telling the court what evidence was improperly admitted, where it appears in the record, and how it affected the outcome. Zyst v. Kelly, 338 Or App 597 (Mar. 12, 2025).

By all accounts, plaintiff was holding a gun he wouldn’t quickly put down when officers entered his hotel room on exigent circumstances, so the use of force here was reasonable. Langiano v. City of Fort Worth, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5638 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025).*

2255 petitioner couldn’t claim defense counsel didn’t communicate with him about his case, including a failure of discovery and a Fourth Amendment claim, when he refused to communicate with counsel. Brown v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44799 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2025).*

Defendant’s traffic stop was valid; thus, the plain view of his gun when he got out of the car was valid. United States v. Christmas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44433 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2025).*

Posted in Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on OR: Petr’s post-conviction 4A denied for lack of specifics and context

D.Mass.: SnapChat warrant didn’t go stale after six months [would it ever?]

SnapChat warrant wasn’t stale: “The passage of more than six months between Cardoso’s messages to Pyrtle and issuance of the October 2021 warrant did not undermine probable cause to believe that data from Pyrtle’s Snapchat account would provide evidence of marijuana trafficking.” As in: the information is still there; it’s not going anywhere. United States v. Pyrtle, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44729 (D. Mass. Mar. 12, 2025).

The affidavit for warrant wasn’t bare bones: “The affidavit in this case provided a direct link between the location, the Defendant, and the narcotics; established the narcotics had been viewed at the location within hours of applying for the warrant; and provided the basis for relying on the eyewitness. The Court, therefore, finds the warrant affidavit was valid.” United States v. Rodriguez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44721 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2025).*

“But just as was the case for the Bridgeway Apt. search warrant, the Court finds that while there may be omissions or mistakes in the affidavits supporting the GPS warrants, none of those omissions or mistakes were intentional nor were they material to the magistrates’ issuance of any of the [four] GPS warrants.” United States v. Anderson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44758 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 11, 2025).*

Posted in Probable cause, Social media warrants, Staleness | Comments Off on D.Mass.: SnapChat warrant didn’t go stale after six months [would it ever?]

D.D.C.: Under Grubbs, a geofence de-anonymizer SW can’t be challenged before execution

Google responded to a series of search warrants for information and finally objected to a warrant to de-anonymize the information it previously provided. It can’t challenge the warrant before execution under Grubbs. Google LLC v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44719 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Motion to suppress, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Under Grubbs, a geofence de-anonymizer SW can’t be challenged before execution

techdirt: Appeals Court: ‘Plain View” Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows

techdirt: Appeals Court: ‘Plain View” Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows by Tim Cushing (my post here):

Continue reading
Posted in Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on techdirt: Appeals Court: ‘Plain View” Also Includes Using iPhone Camera Options To See Through Tinted Car Windows

DoJ: Knowing false arrest leads to federal civil rights conviction

DoJ: Former Nye County Captain Pleads Guilty To Federal Civil Rights Violation And Wire Fraud (Mar. 12, 2025)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on DoJ: Knowing false arrest leads to federal civil rights conviction

New Law Review: Orin S. Kerr, Data Scanning and the Fourth Amendment

Orin S. Kerr, Data Scanning and the Fourth Amendment, Stanford Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series (Mar. 12, 2025): Abstract:

Continue reading
Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on New Law Review: Orin S. Kerr, Data Scanning and the Fourth Amendment

WA: Officers didn’t have to check whether MJ grow was state licensed before they sought a SW

“We hold that when viewed together, the facts in the affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause to search all four properties, regardless of the fact that the odor of marijuana was only detected at two of the properties. Further, we hold that the search warrant was valid even though the affidavit did not indicate whether the marijuana grow operations were legal and registered with the state.” State v. My Le, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 436 (Mar. 11, 2025).

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by SOL. “In Mr. Topolski’s claim for violation of his right to privacy, he cites Article I, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution in addition to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. … But ‘Washington law has no counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 … and Washington courts have rejected attempts to create a private right of action for damages under the Washington Constitution absent guidance from the legislature.’ … Because there is no private right of action for this claim, it too will be DISMISSED with prejudice.” Topolski v. Wash. State Dep’t of Licensing, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44011 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2025).*

Abandoning the ineffective assistance claims in CoA pleadings on appeal is waiver. United States v. Scott, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5652 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025).*

Posted in Issue preclusion, Waiver | Comments Off on WA: Officers didn’t have to check whether MJ grow was state licensed before they sought a SW

The Guardian: ICE accessed car trackers in sanctuary cities that could help in raids, files show

The Guardian: ICE accessed car trackers in sanctuary cities that could help in raids, files show by Johana Bhuiyan:

Continue reading
Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on The Guardian: ICE accessed car trackers in sanctuary cities that could help in raids, files show

CA10: Shooting yourself and calling 911 is consent to removing the bullet

Defendant reported he was shot by an intruder and called 911. He went to the hospital and a surgeon removed the bullet. The search warrant for his office for evidence of him shooting himself was specific and the good faith exception would apply anyway. More to the point, however, calling 911 for help was consent to everything that happened thereafter. “He admits that his 911 call and request for aid was consent to the surgical removal of the bullet.” There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the bullet removed from him. Finally, firing the gun was an abandonment of the projectile, even though it ended up in him. United States v. Gaye, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5469 (10th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Abandonment, Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA10: Shooting yourself and calling 911 is consent to removing the bullet

CA10: Eight 911 calls about shots from a car essentially corroborated each other

“Taken together, eight corroborating emergency calls, all from the same general geographic area, all reporting gunshots, combined with the time of night and an exact match to the make, model, and color of the vehicle described in the call shows more than mere ‘inchoate and unparticularized suspicion.’ Chavez, 660 F.3d at 1221; accord Juvenile T.K., 134 F.3d at 904 (holding officers had reasonable suspicion when told a man had ‘broken out a window to a vehicle and that he had gotten into a gray vehicle and that he had a gun’); United States v. Burgess, 759 F.3d 708, 709 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding officers had reasonable suspicion when told ‘shots were fired from a black car traveling south’ on a particular street); United States v. Bold, 19 F.3d 99, 100 (2d Cir. 1994) (holding officers had reasonable suspicion when told about a ‘four-door gray Cadillac with three black males, one of whom was armed with a gun’). Here Officer DeGeorge had enough facts to warrant reasonable suspicion. Thus the district court did not clearly err when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence based on the initial stop.” United States v. Sherwood, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5471 (10th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025).*

Not a Franks violation: “the fact that Officer Allen knew Mr. Griffey had a medical marijuana card isn’t material to the probable-cause finding, because having a medical marijuana card doesn’t make it lawful to drive under the influence of alcohol or marijuana.” United States v. Griffey, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42908 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2025).*

“[E]ven if the vehicle stop were unconstitutional, the stop appears no more than an ‘error[] in judgment,’ like in Strieff, rather than flagrant police misconduct.” United States v. Frye, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42295 (D. Alaska Mar. 10, 2025).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA10: Eight 911 calls about shots from a car essentially corroborated each other

CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC

The district court erred three ways in this case: The potential of a federal crime could be considered by the officer in determining probable cause. There was reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The automobile exception applied. United States v. Steinman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5127 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025).

Defendant staying in an Airbnb that he didn’t rent had standing, just like Olson. United States v. Cotto-Cruz, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40512 (D.P.R. Mar. 4, 2025).

The warrant was for defendant’s premises. Before execution of the warrant, officers called the issuing judge and asked about the car parked outside. That was orally included. Making no decision on the oral amendment, the warrant included cars on the premises under existing precedent, and there was probable cause as to the car for the automobile exception. State v. Cruz, 2025 Iowa App. LEXIS 204 (Mar. 5, 2025). [Think about it: an oral amendment violates the “four corners rule.”]

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Standing | Comments Off on CA9: State officers can consider federal crimes in assessing PC

N.D.Ohio: Pole camera view into second story window of house was unreasonable search, but govt prevails anyway

A second story pole camera that actually could see into defendant’s house was unreasonable as to that. But, “[b]ecause there is an independent basis for upholding the validity of the search warrant, this Court will not suppress the evidence seized from the Ansel Residence during the execution of that warrant.” United States v. Gilbert, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39151 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2025). Interesting narrative:

Continue reading
Posted in Pole cameras | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Pole camera view into second story window of house was unreasonable search, but govt prevails anyway

CA6: Entering land to post a notice of civil infraction from the property was not a “search”

“The crux of the Gammarinos’ [Fourth Amendment] argument is that the Defendants entered their properties and removed their personal property without a warrant. As a result, they claim these searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. Yet entering land to post notice of a civil infraction is not a Fourth Amendment search and thus does not require a warrant. … And seizing property that has been declared a public nuisance is reasonable, provided that the property owner has been provided constitutionally adequate due process. … Because the Gammarinos received adequate due process, the abatement actions did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure.” Gammarino v. Sycamore Twp., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5181 (6th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025).

“Based on a totality of the circumstances, the affidavit contained sufficient facts to give rise to the requisite level of probable cause for issuing the search warrant. Accordingly, this Court recommends the District Judge find that the evidence obtained resulting from the search warrant should not be suppressed. [¶] Even if there was no probable cause for the search warrant, the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” United States v. Shumny, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39444 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2025).* Virtually the same holding: United States v. Washington, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39440 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2025),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38827 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2025).*

Defense counsel didn’t argue CSLI was improperly obtained because it was important to argue defendant had no connection to that phone. United States v. Carter, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39425 (D. Mass. Mar. 5, 2025).*

Posted in Curtilage, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Search | Comments Off on CA6: Entering land to post a notice of civil infraction from the property was not a “search”

E.D.La.: Pursuing fleeing drug dealer into an apartment was reasonable

Pursuing fleeing drug dealer into an apartment was reasonable. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39113 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2025):

Continue reading
Posted in Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on E.D.La.: Pursuing fleeing drug dealer into an apartment was reasonable

CA6: Nexus to home based on controlled buys doesn’t require constant visual surveillance

Controlled buys that included trips to defendant’s house was nexus. “Regardless of whether Sims was constantly within the detectives’ view, the affidavit establishes that for each controlled buy, Sims went straight to the buy location from the residence and returned immediately after the transaction, thereby supplying the required nexus with the residence. The mere possibility that detectives might not have had eyes on Sims for a brief period while Sims was headed towards or returning from the buy location does not take away from this common-sense conclusion. Overall, the affidavit undeniably provides ‘reasonable grounds’ to conclude that Sims had drugs stored at the residence.” United States v. Sims, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5208 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 2025).

“Defendant’s unsupported assertion that he was an overnight guest at the Subject Residence ‘approximately’ five times in 2021 and he went there ‘frequently’ for meals … does not establish that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Subject Residence.” He raised an interesting, but ultimately unavailing, nexus argument, and the good faith exception would apply in any event. United States v. Yarbough, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40168 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2025).*

Posted in Nexus, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on CA6: Nexus to home based on controlled buys doesn’t require constant visual surveillance

D.P.R.: Defense counsel’s agreement to accept a SW was waiver of Rule 41 service requirements

Defense counsel’s acceptance of a warrant was a waiver of the service requirements for a warrant in Rule 41. It was also otherwise valid. United States v. Reynoso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40555 (D.P.R. Mar. 4, 2025).

“The search and seizures appear to have been conducted in accordance with the Warrants; accordingly, the Court sees no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal information from the Defendant in order to expand the scope of the search. The facts of record simply do not support a finding that the police conduct in this case constitutes a deliberate abuse of the process, but rather, at worst, an unfortunate oversight. As such, the exclusionary rule does not apply.” United States v. Perez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41184 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2025).*

“Here, Smith cannot establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the knife been successfully excluded. In the overall evidentiary picture, the knife does not occupy a central role. Even without the knife’s admission, the State’s case would have remained strong, as it was supported by the following robust evidence: (1) [the victim’s] testimony about the rape; (2) Scott’s testimony that he was outside the locked apartment during the incident, witnessed Smith leaving, and then immediately heard [her] recount the incident while ‘crying hysterically’; [and DNA]. State v. Smith, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 6, 2025).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Defense counsel’s agreement to accept a SW was waiver of Rule 41 service requirements

CA10: A Franks violation can’t be based on information that had not been discovered yet

The affidavit showed probable cause. And, “Detective Ames did not knowingly or recklessly omit exculpatory information from the affidavit because she was not aware of any such information when she prepared the affidavit.” Weidner v. McHale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5197 (10th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025).

After the court granted a Franks hearing, the government decided not to offer what was obtained from the search at trial, so it became moot. United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39437 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2025).*

Where defendant claims the USMJ was wrong for failure to consider the video as a part of the motion to suppress, it was his duty to make it an exhibit. United States v. Barnard, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39421 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2025).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA10: A Franks violation can’t be based on information that had not been discovered yet