“In sum, we hold that the odor of raw cannabis coming from a vehicle being operated on an Illinois highway, alone, is sufficient to provide police officers, who are trained and experienced in distinguishing between burnt and raw cannabis, with probable cause to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle. See Hill, 2020 IL 124595, ¶ 18 n.2 (“the smell and presence of cannabis undoubtedly remains a factor in a probable cause determination”). Our finding of probable cause is consistent with the Vehicle Code’s odor-proof container requirement. In other words, an officer trained and experienced in distinguishing between burnt and raw cannabis who smells the odor of raw cannabis in a vehicle stopped on the highway would logically suspect that there is cannabis in the vehicle that is not properly contained as required by the Vehicle Code. See 625 ILCS 5/11-502.15(b), (c) (West 2020). Therefore, the circuit court erred when it granted the motion suppressing the raw cannabis confiscated from Molina.” People v. Molina, 2024 IL 129237, 2024 Ill. LEXIS 832 (Dec. 5, 2024).
2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claims were decided pretrial and not appealed. They are law of the case on post-conviction. United States v. Gartenlaub, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30694 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2024).*
Defendant was arrested on really old (two decade) warrants. The search of his backpack was justified by the odor of marijuana, not the arrest itself. State v. Delay, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 2091 ( La. App. 5 Cir Dec. 5, 2024).*
Defendant was in a special housing unit in a NY state prison. He knew he was under constant surveillance. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in admissions he made caught on video. People v. Ashcroft, 2024 NY Slip Op 06077, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6500 (3d Dept. Dec. 5, 2024).
“These Non-Public NYPD Patrol Guide Entries ‘deal with sensitive law enforcement topics and tactics’ regarding confidential informants and search warrant applications, and publicly releasing these documents ‘could potentially … jeopardize current search warrant investigations.’ … The City also seeks to redact the case numbers in Exhibit 5, a spreadsheet listing certain cases from the NYPD’s Disciplinary Administrative Database System, stating that ‘this information is sensitive as it implicates the City’s internal procedures for disciplining its employees.’ … The City’s proposed redaction is necessary to protect its privacy interest and narrowly tailored to do so.” Parkinson v. Desormeau, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219610 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024).*
The City’s motion for summary judgment on excessive force was properly granted. Defendant didn’t rebut the City’s MSJ papers. Purcell v. City of N.Y., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30679 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2024).*
Probable cause and a nexus to defendant’s phone was shown because of arranging drug transactions through its apps. United States v. Hughes, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219482 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).
Probable cause didn’t have to be decided because there was good faith. United States v. Harrison, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30609 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024).*
“Although the criminal proceedings terminated in Barr’s favor, Barr’s malicious prosecution claim fails because she points to neither a misstatement nor an omission in Denmark’s supporting affidavit necessary to support the warrant. Her only meaningful allegation on this score is that the affidavit omitted that Taylor and Semper ‘were convicted felons that were seeking release from jail and probable prison sentences at the time they made their statements.’ But the affidavit expressly acknowledged that Taylor, the primary witness, was incarcerated when he spoke with the detectives. The omission of information about his felony status would not have undermined the warrant or prevented a finding of probable cause.” Barr v. Denmark, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30577 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Texas’s Request to Examine Statute (“RTE Statute”; Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §§ 12.151-12.156) violates Patel. “The issue before the court and, accordingly, this Report and Recommendation are not about whether the Attorney General has a right to request information from corporations doing business within this state. The question addressed is whether the RTE Statute is the proper vehicle with which to request information from filing entities within the state. The Attorney General certainly has this ability; and other statutes continue to serve this purpose in a constitutional fashion—and even would have served his purpose here. With the intervening Supreme Court decision, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, …, the RTE Statute’s plain language precludes a facially constitutional reading. At its most basic level, Patel requires precompliance review for administrative searches, and the plain language of the RTE Statute precludes such review.” Here, the Texas AG sought records of a Boeing subsidiary because of 737Max crashes. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. v. Paxton, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219598 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2024), rev’d 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 15838 (5th Cir. June 26, 2025).
Issuance of a hunting violation citation is not a seizure. Even if it was, there was probable cause. Defendant wildlife officer’s seizure of antlers from a taxidermist can proceed. Craft v. Gills, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219453 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 4, 2024).
As to 2254, Stone v. Powell is a merits claim, not an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. But on the latter, petitioner would have to show he would prevail on the merits of the claim, and he doesn’t. It was all reasonable. Service v. Noeth, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219196 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Even if the reason for the stop was wrong, it was a reasonable mistake of fact and there were other reasons for a stop. United States v. Dixon, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219318 (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Correction omissions, “This revised affidavit might reduce below the level of metaphysical certainty that Mr. Banks is culpable for a crime, but it does not reduce below the probable cause threshold the inference that a crime occurred or that evidence of the crime would be found in the apartment in question to support the warrant.” United States v. Banks, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218966 (D. Me. Dec. 4, 2024).*
“‘Evidence of other wrongful conduct is considered intrinsic when it is offered for the purpose of providing the context in which the charged crime occurred.’ … ‘Intrinsic evidence may help to fill the gaps in the jury’s understanding of the crime charged.’ Id. Here, the drug sales by Defendant to Daffner and later to the undercover officer (including the sale that was basis of Count 2), as well as the execution of the search warrant and the arrest of Defendant ‘completes the story’ and provides a ‘total picture of the charged fentanyl distribution.” United States v. Overall, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219291 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 4, 2024).
“Notably, however, Ezeani did not explain what allegedly ‘criminal falsified material’ was used to effectuate the arrest and seizure of his passports. … Although Ezeani asserted that the immigration officers possessed guns and arrived at his home early in the morning, nothing in his description of the manner in which the seizure was carried out suggested that it was unreasonable. He merely pointed to the Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, which indicated that he gave consent for the officers to enter his home, where he was arrested for being in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. [¶] In sum, because Ezeani did not plead facially plausible facts demonstrating the unreasonableness of the seizure, the District Court properly dismissed his amended complaint. We further conclude that providing Ezeani with further leave to amend his complaint would have been futile.” (Pro se plaintiff) Ezeani v. Jimenez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30561 (3d Cir. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Posted inAdmissibility of evidence, Consent|Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Evidence of the search comes in because it “completes the story”
“The plaintiff similarly alleges that Miller forged a judge’s signature on a search warrant. But he does not say anything else about this search warrant. Did law enforcement execute the search warrant? What, or where, did they search? Did they find or seize anything? Did prosecutors use any seized evidence against the plaintiff at his trial? The complaint does not answer any of these questions. Without additional detail about this alleged forged signature, the court cannot determine whether Miller may have violated the plaintiff’s rights. The plaintiff may not proceed on this claim.” Bailey v. Weiland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217186 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Defendant’s motion to suppress search of another’s cell phone under California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA; Pen. Code, § 1546 et seq.) is denied because the other is dead and has no interest anymore. People v. Clymer, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 778 (1st Dist. Dec. 4, 2024).*
The stop of the car defendant was riding in was objectively lawful. Then marijuana was smelled. State v. Gale, 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 856 (Dec. 4, 2024).*
A change in search and seizure substantive law a decade ago doesn’t justify a sentence reduction from before. United States v. Ugochukwu, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218929 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 3, 2024).*
Defendant makes a 2255 Brady claim about the information for his search and seizure. But, it doesn’t change the outcome. “Defendant fails to explain, and the Court fails to discern, how inclusion of the information Defendant sets forth in support of his claim would have altered that outcome in any way. Thus, the Court cannot agree with Defendant that any Brady violation occurred.” Wilson v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219104 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Defendant’s overtinted windows justified his stop. The officer could not determine the gender of the driver. State v. Fleckinger, 2024-Ohio-5659 (1st Dist. Dec. 4, 2024).*
The search warrant was based partly on a CI’s tip and information from other law enforcement agencies and was based on probable cause. It also was all done in good faith. United States v. Ward, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217486 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Defendant’s stop was based on a CI’s statement, and the CI had a substantial track record with the police and was sufficiently corroborated. United States v. Ellington, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218599 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217277 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Posted inInformant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: Search and seizure Brady, even if there was one, wouldn’t change the outcome
Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not arguing that state law was violated by the search in his federal case. Clark v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219107 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Defense counsel could not be ineffective for not challenging admission of jail calls in evidence at his trial. “Thus, because Traylor had no expectation of privacy in his jail phone calls, the recording of those calls did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and an objection on that basis would have been futile.” Traylor v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219036 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218123 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024).*
The alleged misstatement “‘in the search warrant affidavit’ is of ‘only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and … did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.’ Franks, 438 U.S. at 163 (internal quotations omitted).” United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219043 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2024).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a middle school student’s use of a school computer. Hunter v. Securly, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219084 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2024).*
Defendant’s arrest on a mistaken warrant was still objectively reasonable. The officer did all he could to verify defendant was the right guy. United States v. Nomee, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30533 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024):
Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was based on defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress of a marital vehicle. He never, however, showed that he did, in fact, have standing. Moreover, the trial court found that the search of the vehicle was with probable cause so he would lose on the merits anyway. Nelson v. State, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 877 (Dec. 3, 2024).*
“Stearns also appeals the dismissal of his excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to his Fourth Amendment claim, Stearns fails to ‘provide a meaningful explanation of the argument’ and neglects any ‘citation to relevant authority.’ … Therefore, his Fourth Amendment claim is waived.” Stearns v. Wagner, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30513 (8th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024).*
No matter what date this Fourth Amendment claim arose, it was barred by limitations when it was filed. Willis v. Ruff, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218885 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 3, 2024).*
Requiring plaintiff to get a demolition permit of a building fails to state a claim because “Plaintiffs’ legal theory that the … actions result in a violation of their fourth amendments rights is unclear and conclusory.” Macy v. San Bernardino Cty. Code Enf’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218656 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2024).*
“However, as currently pleaded these claims fail as a matter of law. At the outset, any malicious prosecution claims set forth in Castello’s complaint fails because they rest upon a fatally flawed legal premise. At bottom, the plaintiff seeks to bring a civil rights action premised on claims of malicious prosecution despite the fact that he was convicted at trial, sentenced, and has not set aside or overturned these convictions. [¶] This he cannot do.” Castello v. Arbogast, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217047 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Petitioner’s 2254 claim was based on direct allegations that the Fourth Amendment was violated, and his objections to the R&R don’t even respond to the Stone bar. Vaughn v. Warden Turbeville Corr. Inst., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217451 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2024).*
It’s clear from the testimony that the officer intended to arrest defendant, but it was without probable cause that he was so drunk he was a danger. The motion to suppress is granted, but the grounds change slightly on the motion to reconsider. United States v. Shepherd, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217503 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Defendant was physically arrested for driving an unregistered vehicle [unusual, but not unconstitutional] and was subjected to a search incident. That produced a cell phone and other evidence. The phone was lawfully seized and a valid search warrant was later obtained for it based on probable cause. United States v. Graham, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30382 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Defendant’s stop was valid so his statement was not fruit of the poisonous tree. United States v. Hernandez-Guzman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218396 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2024).*
On the balance of equities, the Eastern District of Texas enjoins the Corporate Transparency Act going into effect January 1, 2025. “[T]he CTA requires a vast array of companies to disclose otherwise private stakeholder information to FinCEN. See 31 U.S.C. § 5336(b)(1). Congress compels these disclosures to control financial crime. Indeed, the CTA says as much.” The Fourth Amendment implications are discussed only in passing. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218294 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024)*:
Hell Gate: 83 Percent of ShotSpotter Alerts Might Not Have Been Gunfire at All by Nick Pinto (“ShotSpotter, the gunshot detection system used by the NYPD since 2015, doesn’t work—if what you mean by ‘work’ is ‘accurately alert police to confirmed gunfire.’ If, on the other hand, you’re looking for a system that gives police a technological excuse to charge into already overpoliced neighborhoods and start questioning people even in the absence of any confirmed gunshots, well, ShotSpotter might be working great. That’s the conclusion of a new report released by Brooklyn Defender Services on Wednesday, which offers the most thorough picture yet of the NYPD’s ShotSpotter program, which uses a network of microphones mounted in neighborhoods to alert the police to suspected gunfire.”).
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Hell Gate: 83 Percent of ShotSpotter Alerts Might Not Have Been Gunfire at All
The use of the SWAT team to execute a no-knock drug warrant was not clearly established to be unreasonable in 2017 when this happened. Davis v. City of Little Rock, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30415 (8th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024):
In a motion to sever counts for trial, it was significant that the stuff was seized under the same search warrant. United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217086 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2024).
There was probable cause and nexus was shown for the search warrant. Defendant’s request for a hearing is denied because his objection are over immaterial facts. United States v. Hodge, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216860 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2024).*
Spousal communication from jail by phone lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and wasn’t privileged just because the jail was closed because of Covid. United States v. Emmanuel, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30345 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024).*
Petitioner claimed his wiretap was based on false information, but it’s defaulted for post-conviction. Harris v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217185 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 2, 2024).*
City ordinance on trash collection did not create a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash from police taking it for investigative purposes. State v. Pulizzi, 2024 Ida. LEXIS 132 (Nov. 29, 2024).
The probation officer had a wealth of reasonable suspicion for a search based on a plethora of issues of noncompliance. United States v. Donohue, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216298 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 27, 2024).*
A police officer convicted of beating a detainee to death under 18 U.S.C. § 242 was a crime of violence for denial of release pending sentencing. United States v. Haley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216146 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2024).*
"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.
