On a child pornography search warrant, search of a locked safe was reasonable. United States v. Villarreal-Resendiz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174690 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026).
Stopping over the stop line was reasonable suspicion for this stop. United States v. Montes, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174112 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026).*
There’s no showing that the officers unreasonably exceeded the scope of the warrant, so suppression isn’t warranted even if they slightly did. United States v. Maxie, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174526 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2026).*
Defendant wasn’t seized when he wasn’t submitting to arrest. United States v. Corbett-Burns, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174628 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2026).*
Smoking marijuana in public is still an arrestable offense, and defendant’s backpack could be searched incident to it. United States v. Worku, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23239 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026).*
Because the stop and frisk was reasonable, the probable cause question is moot. Commonwealth v. Correa, 2026 PA Super 176 (Aug. 5, 2026).*
“While a close call, the Court agrees with the government. On the totality of the circumstances, the facts attested to support a suspicion that the truck was unregistered. With around three years of patrol experience each at the time of the stop, Officers Irwin and Johnson had conducted countless vehicle stops. They explained from experience that ‘NO RECORD’ messages are associated with vehicles that are unregistered or, worse, stolen or car jacked. Officer Irwin in fact described that these so-called ‘NO RECORD’ vehicles turn out unregistered ‘[m]ost of the time.’ Although neither the truck nor its license plate exhibited damage or suspicious signatures, the officers testified that ‘NO RECORD’ messages often result in the vehicle being unregistered absent those imperfections. It is immaterial that the officers’ suspicion was proven false because they ‘produc[ed] facts establishing that [they] reasonably believed that a violation had taken place.’” United States v. Brown, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173908 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2026).*
“And here, it strains credulity for Young to claim that he has any standing to challenge the lawfulness of the victim’s sexual-assault examination.” Young v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 401 (Aug. 5, 2026).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging this federal search on state law grounds. United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172582 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2026).*
“Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by not immediately releasing him from custody on electronic monitoring. Yet, ‘no court has held that the Fourth Amendment compels the release of sex offenders who lack lawful and approved living arrangements.’ Smith v. Anderson, 874 F.3d 966, 968 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 864 (7th Cir. 2017)). The Court cannot infer from the allegations contained in the complaint that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by verifying information with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections before releasing him on electronic monitoring.” Rowell v. Mikula, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173009 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2026).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on GA: Def in sex assault case has no standing to challenge alleged victim’s rape exam
Defendant was strip searched on going into jail, no matter what type of unit he was going to, and a baggie of meth was found under his genitals. The strip search was reasonable and the jail didn’t have to accommodate ways to avoid the strip search. United States v. Sutton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23367 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).
Firearm possession in the home doesn’t readily become stale, and “staleness is a context-specific inquiry.” Even if probable cause was lacking, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Hernandez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171613 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 3, 2026).*
The record supports the conclusion the consent was voluntary on the totality. The defense said it was coerced. No evidence of that. State v. Wilkins, 2026-Ohio-2971 (4th Dist. July 21, 2026).*
This traffic stop was for not pulling far enough off the road, and was valid. United States v. Underwood, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2026).*
The stop was with reasonable suspicion, and the frisk can occur immediately. The trial court’s holding it couldn’t has no support in law. State v. Lyles, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5911 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 5, 2026).
The CI was not known to the affiant officer, but he was to the officer providing the information to the affiant. There was probable cause for the cell phone warrant. United States v. Gray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171016 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2026).*
“The search of defendant’s vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement for the suspected offense of operating a vehicle while under the influence where defendant admitted to smoking marijuana about one hour prior to driving, a bag of marijuana was discovered on his person, and defendant was speeding, and where the arresting officer testified that defendant had bloodshot eyes and slowed speech.” State v. Martin, 2026-Ohio-2959 (1st Dist. July 31, 2026).*
“[W]here a dog only partially and briefly pokes their head into the interior of a vehicle, as Cody did here, such does not constitute a search. Fellmy, 165 F.4th at 506 (citing Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408-09) (finding a dog partially poking their head through an open window was not a search). Thus, this Court finds that Trooper Boetcher and Deputy Gunnell had reasonable suspicion to initiate use of the canine and did not violate the Fourth Amendment by doing something to encourage or in some way facilitate Cody to physically intrude the vehicle.” United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173218 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2026).
“Here, it is clear that the officers approached their probable cause determination with fluidity—they initially did not feel that they had enough footing upon which they could justify a search of Mr. Pope’s vehicle but later gathered additional information that formed the basis for probable cause. Weighing the physical evidence that Mrs. Pope had provided—bags of bullets and the gun case, along with confirmation from A.D. that Mr. Pope frequently carried a gun, Mr. Pope’s felony status, and his family’s dogged interest in obtaining the keys to the cars—the officers determined that the bar for probable cause to search Mr. Pope’s cars—which is not a high one—had been met. The Court agrees.” United States v. Pope, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171229 (E.D. Va. July 31, 2026).*
Posted inDog sniff, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Drug dog sticking head partially into open door area was at least with reasonable suspicion
The failure of the drug dog to alert doesn’t completely undermine probable case, but it is a factor in the totality of circumstances. Here, the government didn’t meet its burden. United States v. Presby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172828 (D. Me. Aug. 4, 2026):
In this anticipatory warrant case, the package was delivered to the target residence but then moved to another residence. That created exigent circumstances for entry without a warrant. Officers also did a protective sweep and retreated to get a search warrant. United States v. Anderson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171519 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2026):
Posted inAnticipatory warrant, Emergency / exigency|Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Package covered by anticipatory warrant was moved to another house, and exigency permitted warrantless entry to seize
“The government seeks a warrant to search two cellular phones that have been in its possession for more than two months since the time to execute a prior search warrant lapsed. In United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit held that a delay of less than half that length violated the Fourth Amendment. Smith stated and clarified principles by which to determine when law enforcement’s delay in seeking a warrant to search a seized personal electronic storage and communication device make the retention and search of that device unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. 967 F.3d at 213. Applying those principles, I conclude that the warrant application must be denied.” In re Application for Search Warrant for Two Cellular Phones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169896 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026).
The police request to see defendant’s security guard license was not a seizure, but one did occur later, and with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Burvick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22969 (2d Cir. July 31, 2026).*
NYPD ordering plaintiff to leave his transitional housing place under threat of arrest didn’t effect a seizure. Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Servs., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169984 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2026).*
Posted inCell phones, Reasonableness, Seizure|Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: SW request to search cell phone seized two months earlier was unreasonable
There was an order to enter the taxpayer’s property for an assessment; however, the entry never occurred, so the Fourth Amendment issue is moot. Bolte v. Dubois Cty. Assessor, 2026 Ind. Tax LEXIS 35 (T.C. Aug. 3, 2026).
“The record reveals that Matthis acted in self-defense and did not commit a crime. He was not only a victim of his former tenant’s abuse, but also of a judge’s carelessly issued ex parte restraining order, which precipitated the entire fiasco. The consequences of Matthis’ arrest, including his loss of employment as a schoolteacher, are deeply regrettable. However, because the officers had at least arguable probable cause under the circumstances to arrest Matthis and issue him a citation, the District Court correctly concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.” Matthis v. Rogers, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23050 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2026).*
A computer check showed the vehicle owner had a suspended DL. The driver had a face mask so the officer couldn’t see the face of the driver. There was reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Robinson, 2026-Ohio-2980 (11th Dist. Aug. 3, 2026).*
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on Reason: Kansas Lawsuit: ALPRs Turn a License Plate Into the ‘Functional Equivalent’ of a ‘GPS Tracking Device’
A suppression hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, and defendant was unrepresented at that point due to disagreements with first retained and then appointed counsel. Remanded. The pretrial motions in general were disorganized, and the Fourth Amendment claim was “nuanced.” People v. Haupt, 2026 Mich. LEXIS 1493 (July 30, 2026).
Plaintiff sued over a stop that led to her dog dying in her hot vehicle. The stop and impoundment were valid, and the officers get qualified immunity for the dog’s death. Bledsoe v. City of Caddo Valley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169514 (W.D. Ark. June 25, 2026).*
Defendant argued his frisk was coercive so his later consent was invalid. But, “The frisk was not so remarkable or egregious that it made the encounter unduly coercive, even assuming Officer Waldroup lacked reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Anderson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22931 (8th Cir. July 31, 2026).*
Defendant’s admission to the officers she had a little marijuana in her backpack didn’t justify a search of the trunk. United States v. Bowling, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169576 (S.D. W. Va. July 30, 2026).
Plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest case fails for lack of any factual basis for his claim. Haynes v. Warden Curran-Fromhold Corr. Facility, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168061 (E.D. Pa. July 29, 2026).*
There was reasonable suspicion for the supervised release walk through of defendant’s premises, and then a real search. United States v. Ingram, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168703 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 2026).*
Defendant’s stop and further encounter was not extended consensually, but it was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Burquez-Silveira, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169468 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166945 (D. Ariz. July 28, 2026).*
The controlled buy off defendant gave probable cause to search his car after he left it, irrespective of an alleged pretextual traffic stop and use of a drug dog. United States v. Randle, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22657 (7th Cir. July 29, 2026).
“This information, in and of itself, created probable cause that Defendant was involved in the sale of controlled substances and, further, that evidence of such sales would be at the Y Street Residence.” United States v. Terry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167819 (D. Neb. July 9, 2026).*
Stone v. Powell doesn’t apply to a Fifth Amendment due process claim. As for unreasonable application of SCOTUS cases, there wasn’t. Hadley v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 22622 (11th Cir. July 29, 2026).*
Defendant admits he abandoned his gun, so the question is whether he was unreasonably seized before that. He wasn’t. United States v. Bailey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168051 (N.D. Ga. June 3, 2026).*
WaPo: How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking by Drew Harwell, Douglas MacMillan and Aaron Schaffer (“Flock’s array of license-plate cameras was built to fight crime. But at least 50 law enforcement officers were charged with or accused of misusing it and other systems.”):
The trial court acted within its statutory discretion imposing a search condition on defendant during his mental health diversion. His criminal history justified it. Thompson v. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 459 (1st Dist. July 30, 2026).
One defendant completely failed to make a Franks preliminary showing, and the other’s attempt just wasn’t enough. United States v. Hunter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166370 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2026).*
“As part of counsel’s approach to standing, counsel declined to stipulate Wooden’s ownership of the cell phone numbers because the state attributed the cell phones to Wooden and counsel presumed standing would not be contested. Tactical decisions, even if debatable, are generally not considered deficient unless they are so egregious that they undermine the adversarial process. … Here, Wooden’s counsel pursued a strategy, i.e., establish standing to challenge the cell phone data and residence search, without conceding any interest in the phones. Based on the record presented, counsel’s approach fell within reasonable trial strategy.” And relying on an overruled case wasn’t prejudicial. State v. Wooden, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2781 (10th Dist. July 28, 2026).*
While small amounts of marijuana are legal in Ohio, driving under the influence is not, so the smell of burnt marijuana in a vehicle is probable cause. Also, a blunt was seen in the ashtray. State v. Sawyer, 2026-Ohio-2913 (1st Dist. July 29, 2026).
The affidavit for warrant was supported by probable cause, and the good faith exception applies even if it did not. United States v. Howell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165780 (N.D. Iowa July 27, 2026) (R&R).*
“[G]iven the safety and reliability of the methodology for obtaining a buccal sample and the unavailability of less intrusive means to collect defendant’s exemplar, this Court finds that, on balance, the record supports granting the People’s motion to compel a saliva sample from defendant by buccal swab, and for its use in DNA testing and comparison with the specimen identified in forensic biology case file number F25-06377.” People v. Griiffin, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 1095 (Bronx Co. June 16, 2026), published July 27, 2026.*
Hearsay may be relied upon in a suppression hearing, and the confrontation clause doesn’t apply. United States v. Albert, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168169 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 2026):
The third-party doctrine doesn’t apply to data a computer user stores in the cloud. State v. Klaus, 351 Or. App. 738 (July 29, 2026) (Oregon’s decision page currently unavailable):
Yahoo Tech: Can you be prosecuted for wiping your phone at the border? by Dan Thorp-Lancaster (“An activist is being prosecuted for activating a “duress code” that wiped his phone during an airport interrogation. Here’s what you need to know.”)
Posted inBorder search|Comments Off on Yahoo Tech: Can you be prosecuted for wiping your phone at the border?
"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.
