M.D.Fla.: Package covered by anticipatory warrant was moved to another house, and exigency permitted warrantless entry to seize

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Hall

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):

Continue reading →
Posted in Anticipatory 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

E.D.N.Y.: SW request to search cell phone seized two months earlier was unreasonable

Posted on August 5, 2026 by Hall

“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 in Cell phones, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: SW request to search cell phone seized two months earlier was unreasonable

IN Tax: 4A claim over order to enter for tax assessment moot where it didn’t happen

Posted on August 4, 2026 by Hall

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 ten-ant’s abuse, but also of a judge’s carelessly issued ex parte restrain-ing order, which precipitated the entire fiasco. The consequences of Matthis’ arrest, including his loss of employment as a school-teacher, 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 in Administrative search, Mootness, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN Tax: 4A claim over order to enter for tax assessment moot where it didn’t happen

Reason: Kansas Lawsuit: ALPRs Turn a License Plate Into the ‘Functional Equivalent’ of a ‘GPS Tracking Device’

Posted on August 3, 2026 by Hall

Reason: Kansas Lawsuit: ALPRs Turn a License Plate Into the ‘Functional Equivalent’ of a ‘GPS Tracking Device’ by Jacob Sullum (“The Kansas Justice Institute argues that Wichita’s ‘warrantless ALPR dragnet surveillance program’ violates the state constitution’s privacy protections.”).

Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on Reason: Kansas Lawsuit: ALPRs Turn a License Plate Into the ‘Functional Equivalent’ of a ‘GPS Tracking Device’

MI: Suppression hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings

Posted on August 3, 2026 by Hall

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).*

Posted in Consent, Privileges, Qualified immunity, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on MI: Suppression hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings

S.D.W.Va.: Admission to a little marijuana in backpack didn’t justify search of her car trunk

Posted on August 2, 2026 by Hall

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).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Burden of pleading, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Admission to a little marijuana in backpack didn’t justify search of her car trunk

CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

Posted on August 2, 2026 by Hall

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).*

Posted in Abandonment, Automobile exception, Dog sniff, Issue preclusion, Privileges, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA7: Controlled buy justified stop, dog sniff, and search

WaPo: How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking

Posted on August 2, 2026 by Hall

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.”):

Continue reading →
Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on WaPo: How rogue officers turned a nationwide camera network into a tool for stalking

Cal.1: Search condition for mental health diversion was within court’s discretion

Posted on August 1, 2026 by Hall

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).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on Cal.1: Search condition for mental health diversion was within court’s discretion

OH1: Even with MJ use being legal, driving under influence isn’t

Posted on July 31, 2026 by Hall

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.*

Posted in DNA, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH1: Even with MJ use being legal, driving under influence isn’t

N.D.N.Y.: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

Posted on July 31, 2026 by Hall

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):

Continue reading →
Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on N.D.N.Y.: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

OR: Third-party doctrine doesn’t apply to data a computer user stores in the cloud

Posted on July 30, 2026 by Hall

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):

Continue reading →
Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on OR: Third-party doctrine doesn’t apply to data a computer user stores in the cloud

Yahoo Tech: Can you be prosecuted for wiping your phone at the border?

Posted on July 29, 2026 by Hall

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 in Border search | Comments Off on Yahoo Tech: Can you be prosecuted for wiping your phone at the border?

LATimes: Immigration agents used racial slurs referring to Latinos in text messages, video obtained by ACLU

Posted on July 28, 2026 by Hall

LATimes: Immigration agents used racial slurs referring to Latinos in text messages, video obtained by ACLU by Brittny Mejia (immigration stops are seemingly based on racial profiling).

Posted in Racial profiling | Comments Off on LATimes: Immigration agents used racial slurs referring to Latinos in text messages, video obtained by ACLU

Cal.4: No error not unsealing CI’s identity in SW application

Posted on July 28, 2026 by Hall

The trial court didn’t err in refusing to unseal part of the search warrant affidavit that disclosed the identity of the CI because the state informer privilege applied. The sealing issue still gets reviewed on appeal where the court of appeals makes its own determination. People v. Vasquez, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 451 (4th Dist. July 27, 2026).

The officer’s reasonable mistake about the basis for his stop did not warrant suppression under Heien. State v. Dunch, 2026-Ohio-2868 (11th Dist. July 27, 2026).*

Defendant’s arrest for robbery was with probable cause, and his backpack was lawfully searched incident to the arrest. State v. Strattman, 2026-Ohio-2863 (12th Dist. July 27, 2026).*

The officer here was conversing with the passenger in defendant’s car, but that was not a seizure of the driver until they were ordered out of the car at gunpoint. United States v. Murphy, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165128 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2026).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonableness, Search incident, Seizure, Warrant papers | Comments Off on Cal.4: No error not unsealing CI’s identity in SW application

D.P.R.: A shed on the curtilage was within scope of SW

Posted on July 28, 2026 by Hall

It was reasonable for officers to search a shed on the curtilage; it was within the scope of the search warrant. United States v. Torres-Benitez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165162 (D.P.R. July 24, 2026).

The CI said he could get drugs off defendant, and the police used electronic surveillance to monitor the transactions. That was probable cause. People v. Dacosta, 2026 NY Slip Op 04532, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752 (3rd Dept. July 23, 2026).*

Not providing counsel before a BAC blood draw is not a structural error. State v. Stempel, 2026 Ariz. App. LEXIS 145 (July 24, 2026).*

There was probable cause and nexus to defendant’s computer for CSAM based on it having TOR browsing software for secrecy and admissions defendant made. State v. Quam, 2026 ND 145 (July 24, 2026).*

Posted in Curtilage, Drug or alcohol testing, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on D.P.R.: A shed on the curtilage was within scope of SW

NY4: Payton does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Hall

Payton v. New York does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building. People v. Kadenhead, 2026 NY Slip Op 04680 (4th Dept. July 24, 2026).

There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest on a warrant, and the officer called others to verify that it existed. Eacholes v. State, 2026 Miss. LEXIS 200 (July 23, 2026).*

The officer was reasonable but mistaken in stopping defendant for not having a light on his bicycle at night. His argument centered on whether the stop was reasonably extended, but the record doesn’t show that was preserved for appeal on the conditional plea. Glenn v. State, 2026 WY 85 (July 24, 2026).*

A Darden hearing on the existence of a CI for the search warrant was unnecessary where the officer’s information alone was sufficient to show probable cause. People v. Anderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 04666 (4th Dept. July 24, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY4: Payton does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building

FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Hall

This being a warrantless search during a traffic stop with a drug dog, the state bore the burden of proof on justification for detention for the dog sniff, and it failed to show that the stop was lawfully continued. Reversed. Hudson v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2026).

2255 petitioner doesn’t show that defense counsel was ineffective for (1) not filing a motion to suppress or (2) that it would even prevail. Therefore, no prejudice. United States v. McIntosh, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163234 (D. Minn. July 23, 2026).*

There was probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone and where it was. Two calls were made from it after he’d been arrested, and the officers believed they had the location. Defendant’s Franks challenge fails for failing to show materiality. United States v. Livigni, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162837 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2026).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on FL5: State failed to show justification for delay for dog sniff

TechCrunch: US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a ‘duress’ password during border search

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Hall

TechCrunch: US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a ‘duress’ password during border search by Zack Whittaker:

Continue reading →
Posted in Border search, Cell phones | Comments Off on TechCrunch: US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a ‘duress’ password during border search

MI: Possession of MJ that’s only a civil infraction doesn’t justify search of car under automobile exception

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Hall

Michigan, by ballot initiative, made possession of a small amount of marijuana a civil infraction. The smell of marijuana here only appeared to be a civil infraction and not a crime, so the automobile exception did not justify the search of defendant’s car for evidence of a crime. People v. Wilkins, 2026 Mich. LEXIS 1461 (July 22, 2026). From the syllabus by the court:

Continue reading →
Posted in Automobile exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on MI: Possession of MJ that’s only a civil infraction doesn’t justify search of car under automobile exception