Defendant lacked standing to suppress 4,100 grams of ketamine seized from Brown because he never possessed the package, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in package of drugs carried by Brown, and the ketamine was recovered away from him during Brown’s separate arrest outside the Holiday Inn. But, law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest him because he merely drove Brown to the Holiday Inn, parked, walked behind the hotel, returned with a water bottle, and appeared nervous when confronted by police – conduct consistent with innocent activity that did not establish criminal behavior. Akinrinlola v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 4935 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) May 28, 2026)
The statement in the affidavit for BAC warrant was accurate because it was what the officer was told, even if he had no personal knowledge that alcohol could be smelled on defendant in the ambulance. State v. Berretta, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 410 (June 30, 2026).*
Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the car he was a passenger in. Besides, in the bodycam video, he denies ever being in the car. United States v. Thompson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147854 (D.D.C. July 3, 2026).*
“We now hold that the officers had the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion to justify their seizure of D.W. when they grabbed his leg. We reach that conclusion largely because D.W. ran upon the mere sight of police officers approaching from a substantial distance, with little indication that they were intent on stopping, searching, or even questioning him in particular. D.W. had not been singled out in any way and, to that point, had little reason to think he could not simply go about his business.” D.W. v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 222 (July 2, 2026).
A storage company owner’s citizen call to police that defendant was a felon with a gun was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention. Then his words resulted in handcuffing. United States v. Westfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120520 (E.D. Okla. May 5, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118669 (E.D. Okla. May 29, 2026).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge “misses the mark.” He challenges reference to a hand-to-hand transaction. The officer’s trial testimony referred to another time, not the one in the affidavit. United States v. Rosario, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19242 (3d Cir. July 1, 2026).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on DC: Officers were a good ways away from def when he fled without any apparent reason
The USMJ found that the officers abandoned the mission of the traffic stop (for Rodriguez purposes) when they called for the drug dog. So, the question is then whether there was reasonable suspicion at that point, and the answer is no. R&R adopted granting motion to suppress. United States v. Ruegge, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147661 (D.S.D. June 29, 2026).* A helpful discussion on reasonable suspicion on the totality:
“Ultimately, Mitchell’s references to ‘rival priorities,’ ‘more pressing needs,’ and ‘other pressing duties’ of police officers (588 U.S. at p. 856; see id. at pp. 840, 851), must be understood in the context of the opinion’s focus on an officer responding to the natural chaos that pervades the scene of automobile accident. And this focus helps explain the flaw in the magistrate’s reasoning when she suggested that a finding of exigency could be based on the fact that ‘[e]very minute that Officer Pope was there [at the hospital], he was not out on the freeways.’ Accepting that theory, the exigency exception would swallow the warrant rule because the time an officer spends obtaining a warrant could always be used for other police duties. Yet we must remember that obtaining warrants before conducting searches and seizures is a crucial part of a police officer’s duties, not a distraction from them, and Mitchell does not suggest otherwise. Rather, Mitchell only observes that traffic accidents, by their very nature, often create competing demands on an officer’s time, which will be especially relevant in establishing exigent circumstances.” People v. Castro, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 403 (4th Dist. July 1, 2026).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Cal.4: State’s argument of exigency for DUI blood draw boiled down to “there’s always exigency”
Defendant submitted to GPS monitoring by his bondsman as a condition of bail, and the police could call the bondsman for the GPS information to connect defendant to a new crime without a warrant. State v. Eberhart, 2026 S.C. App. LEXIS 41 (July 1, 2026).
Here, there were two apartments, an upper and lower. Defendant was the upper. He had no standing to a search of the lower. United States v. Robinson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147747 (W.D.N.Y. May 20, 2026).*
Even if some details leading to the stop were incorrect or maybe even false, the main facts added up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Mason, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145531 (N.D. Ohio July 1, 2026).*
Posted inConsent, Private search, Reasonable suspicion, Standing|Comments Off on SC: Police didn’t need a SW to access def’s bondsman’s GPS monitoring of him because he agreed to GPS monitoring for release
“Earl was required to show, not that he had an expectation of privacy in the home at some time, but that he had that expectation at the time of the search. United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1148 (11th Cir. 1997) (‘we are not persuaded that [the defendant] carried his burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment … at the time of the search’); United States v. Sweat, 2007 WL 9717235, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2007) (‘The Court must determine whether Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of the search, not whether Defendant ever had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property.’). His evidence showed only that he previously had access to the residence—not that he maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy when agents executed the warrant months later.” United States v. Earl, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145439 (N.D. Ga. July 1, 2026).
“A judge found probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendant Julien Giraud Jr.’s … home at 30 Elm Place in Irvington, New Jersey based on a detective’s sworn oral testimony. That testimony included statements that the detective should have known were inaccurate and omitted critical information that the judge should have been provided. Because the detective’s testimony was recklessly inaccurate and formed the basis of the judge’s determination of probable cause, all evidence obtained from the search of the residence will be suppressed.” “‘[O]missions are made with reckless disregard for the truth when an officer recklessly omits facts that any reasonable person would know that a judge would want to know.’” United States v. Giraud, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146800 (D.N.J. July 2, 2026).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Standing|Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Standing has to be shown for the time of the search, not at some time in the past
The VA’s determination here for mandatory in-home reassessment visits did not violate the Fourth Amendment under Wyman v. James. The statute gives the VA that discretion. Latham v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17328 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2026) (2 Search and Seizure § 43.33).
Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of a passenger’s fanny pack. United States v. Haslam, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146116 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2026).*
The officer had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop as a felon in possession and handcuffs were reasonable for officer safety. United States v. Westfield, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120520 (E.D. Okla. May 5, 2026),* adopted 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118669 (E.D. Okla. May 29, 2026),* later proceeding 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145294 (E.D. Okla., June 25, 2026).*
The motion to suppress the search of devices for lack of particularity is granted, but the cloud search is not. Defendant is accused of hacking into student accounts on the University of Michigan’s computer system. The IT policy says that the university has the ability to search computers that it owns, but that does not apply to the police. The computers searched were used only by him. See United States v. Angevine, 281 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2002). Here, “[t]he lack of particularity in UMPD’s forensic search warrants renders them unconstitutional general warrants.” It was a full forensic search without limits. United States v. Weiss, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146101 (E.D. Mich. July 1, 2026):
Posted inComputer and cloud searches, General warrant|Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Full forensic search of a def’s university computer violated particularity and became a general warrant
A tower dump warrant is an issue left open in Carpenter, 585 U.S. at 316, and the police effort here was valid under the good faith exception. United States v. Campbell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146360 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2026):
Officers had a warrant for defendant’s house, and they didn’t need reasonable suspicion for a drug dog sniff of his car parked in the driveway. State v. Desarro, 2026-Ohio-1672, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 1692 (6th Dist. May 7, 2026).*
“We need not assess whether Defendants’ conduct was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because, even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is no rule clearly establishing their actions as unconstitutional.” Norman v. Horton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (6th Cir. June 22, 2026).*
Three tracking warrants were issued for defendant’s vehicle, and they were issued with probable cause. United States v. Jackson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143856 (W.D.N.Y. June 29, 2026).*
This electronics search warrant over a marijuana grow could be a broad period of time because of the amount of time to set it up and operate it. United States v. Koistinen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143173 (D. Ariz. June 26, 2026).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on OH6: RS not needed for dog sniff of car on curtilage during SW execution on house
Yahoo and NCMEC didn’t act as government agents when they scanned defendant’s email account for hash values of CSAM. They were not required to do so, but did so and warned customers they would. NCMEC passed on the information to the local police who got a search warrant. United States v. Williamson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18972 (11th Cir. June 30, 2026).
One appellant’s search condition for probation was rejected as unjustified by the record. The other is waived for not having objected. People v. Brazeal, 2026 NY Slip Op 03910, 2026 N.Y. LEXIS 1127 (June 23, 2026).*
Non-lethal force to disperse and not detain was not an unreasonable seizure. Wilansky v. Morton Cty., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18264 (8th Cir. June 24, 2026),*
There was reasonable suspicion defendant wasn’t driving in his lane, and that supported the stop. Then, drugs were in plain view in the vehicle. State v. Alberts, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 374 (June 25, 2026).*
A geofence warrant is a search because it captures location data. The mere collection of private data on the phone is not intended to be shared with third parties; essentially, a cell phone user has no control over that at all. The case is remanded, however, to the Fourth Circuit to consider how the various steps of the warrant process should be applied. Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. —, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2878 (June 29, 2026) (ScotusBlog). The syllabus:
Posted ingeofence|Comments Off on SCOTUS: Geofence warrants governed by Carpenter and are a search; remanded for resolution of issues (interesting take on third party doctrine, too)
The Guardian: ‘It’s dangerous and it’s going to erode trust’: redesign of US government websites stokes surveillance fears by Jason Wilson (“An opaque White House office staffed largely by veterans of Elon Musk’s ‘department of government efficiency’ (Doge) has quietly rebuilt some of the federal government’s most sensitive websites – for passport applications, voter registration, prescription-drug pricing and children’s savings – in ways critics say appear to violate federal law. The National Design Studio (NDS) was established by a Donald Trump executive order last August, and is led by Trump-aligned Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia and staffed by Doge veterans. A Guardian investigation has found the office has apparently been developing or redeveloping sensitive federal websites, including those connecting Americans with prescription drugs, children’s savings accounts, passports and voter registration. The investigation corroborates and advances earlier reporting by the Drey Dossier, a YouTube investigative outlet. The NDS built and now operates four public federal websites: ndstudio.gov, trumprx.gov, realfood.gov and trumpaccounts.gov. All four ran commercial visitor-tracking software, configured to evade the privacy tools many web users install, and none carry the public filings federal privacy law requires under laws including the Privacy Act of 1974 and the E-Government Act of 2002.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on The Guardian: ‘It’s dangerous and it’s going to erode trust’: redesign of US government websites stokes surveillance fears
In the Buffalo Tops Grocery mass shooting, the emergency disclosure request to Apple, Facebook, and Verizon was based on the possibility there were coconspirators. Even though defendant’s manifesto said he was acting alone, investigators didn’t have to take that at face value. CSLI was also validly obtained for the period of his planning, and that showed nexus. Defendant’s claims of “unknowns” about how the Verizon warrant was executed didn’t merit a hearing on alleged defects in execution defendant hoped to find. United States v. Gendron, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109541 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2026). See § 25.21 (Sirhan Sirhan case arising in 1968 involved a warrantless search of his house because of the possibility of co-conspirators in the murder of candidates for President.).
There was reasonable suspicion defendant wasn’t driving in his lane, and that supported the stop. Then, drugs were in plain view in the vehicle. State v. Alberts, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 374 (June 25, 2026).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison cell. Gregory v. State, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 88 (June 26, 2026).*
Defendant was wanted for a shooting incident in Flatbush, Brooklyn caught on video. When they came to where they suspected he was, he attempted to flee out a window. That gave exigency to enter. United States v. Richard, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99358 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2026).
There was probable cause to search defendant’s place for explosives based on two tips from informants and police investigation. Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. He was parsing “multiple tips” as meaning more than two. United States v. Chambers, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106759 (D. Conn. May 14, 2026).*
Non-lethal force to disperse and not detain was not an unreasonable seizure. Wilansky v. Morton Cty., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18264 (8th Cir. June 24, 2026),*
A driveway isn’t always curtilage. If it’s not closed off, likely not. United States v. Lyons, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140145 (W.D. Tenn. June 24, 2026):
A violation of the knock-and-announce statute for serving search warrants doesn’t require exclusion of the evidence under Hudson, which is followed. State v. Times, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 982 (June 25, 2026).
“Idling” is not a crime for a passenger vehicle in D.C., but that was the reason for the stop. The search of the cupholder was not for alleged missing paperwork for registration, so the search is suppressed. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140305 (D.D.C. June 24, 2026).*
Defendant’s throwing a satchel in a parking lot as he was being detained by the police was abandonment. United States v. Taylor, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139563 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2026).*
Even if there was false information in the arrest warrant application, removing it still leaves probable cause. Majors v. City of West Des Moines, 24-3189 (8th Cir. June 25, 2026).*
"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.
