“Border searches do not require a warrant to be reasonable. And if a border search is routine, individualized suspicion is not required either. But law enforcement may not conduct a nonroutine border search without individualized suspicion. Under our precedent, forensic searches of cell phones are nonroutine. But what about manual searches? Today, we join all our sister circuits that have addressed this issue in holding that manual searches of cell phones at the border are routine and thus do not require individualized suspicion.” CSAM was found. United States v. Cardozo, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20419 (4th Cir. July 13, 2026).
Defendant was subjected to two traffic stops. Between them, officers saw and suspected drug deliveries. The second stop was objectively reasonable, and the dog sniff was with reasonable suspicion developed after the first stop. United States v. Drayton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20380 (8th Cir. July 13, 2026).*
Defendant was observed doing drug deals in the parking lot outside his apartment. The officers reasonably inferred that he had drugs in his apartment. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Gray, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20290 (6th Cir. July 9, 2026).*
Probation search of defendant’s cell phone, whether he owned it or merely possessed it, was reasonable. He claimed it was someone else’s. State v. Warner, 2026 ND 133 (July 9, 2026).
Habeas petitioner’s Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim was never presented to the state courts, so it’s defaulted. Purpura v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152991 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2026).*
A FinCEN geographic targeting order (GTO) for money transfer companies within a small distance from the Mexican border report all transactions over $200 violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims are left undecided as unnecessary. Novedades v. Fin. Crimes Enf’t Network, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20429 (9th Cir. July 13, 2026).*
Vangard: SF Court Dismisses Felony Charges after Judge Finds Racial Bias Tainted SFPD Stop and Arrest by David M. Greenwald (“A San Francisco Superior Court judge has dismissed all felony drug charges against Kenneth McCurry after finding that two San Francisco police officers acted with implicit racial bias during the stop, use of force and arrest, violating California’s Racial Justice Act. Judge Patrick Thompson dismissed all three felony drug charges against McCurry on May 8 after concluding that the officers’ conduct at multiple decision points was tainted by implicit racial bias, according to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.”)
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Pretext|Comments Off on Vanguard: SF Court Dismisses Felony Charges after Judge Finds Racial Bias Tainted SFPD Stop and Arrest
A municipal court judge issuing a search warrant for something outside his or her territorial jurisdiction is a nonfundamental error that does not require suppression of the evidence. State v. Mele, 2026-Ohio-2604, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2537 (7th Dist. July 2, 2026).
Trash pulls from the containers where the driveway met the street were reasonable, despite the curtilage argument. There, not so much curtilage. There was probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Savage, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153234 (W.D. Pa. July 10, 2026).*
“Gray argues that probable cause did not exist to search his apartment because the warrant’s supporting affidavit failed to demonstrate a sufficient link between illicit drug activity and the premises. Yet even if we assume that the affidavit lacked probable cause, the good-faith exception applies.” [It did show probable cause.] United States v. Gray, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20290 (6th Cir. July 9, 2026).*
A traffic stop outside the officer’s jurisdiction doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Sexton, 2026-Ohio-2636, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2551 (2d Dist. July 10, 2026).
A habeas petitioner has no right to discovery of search warrant affidavits. Moreover, he does nothing to explain a rationale for getting them because there was no Fourth Amendment claim made before, and the time for filing one has long passed. United States v. Fuller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151657 n.1 (S.D. Miss. July 9, 2026).*
An officer off duty running a marathon saw defendant pull a gun on another person in a car. She shouted “gun” and hid. A nearby officer in uniform approached. Defendant fled from the car, leaving the gun. The search of the car was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19984 (6th Cir. July 7, 2026).*
Posted inImmigration checkpoints|Comments Off on RawStory Opinion: Trump just declared these parts of America are outside the Constitution (within 100 miles of any border)
A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20100 (1st Cir. July 9, 2026).
A citizen’s tip alone wouldn’t likely be probable cause. But, there’s more: “The citizen’s tip and marijuana residue, alone, provided a substantial basis for probable cause.” “Together with the unfired ammunition in the glove, the torn-off piece of a ziplock baggie (evidence of drug trafficking), the gang-related activity in the area, and Baling’s and Dilang’s felon status, the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause.” United States v. Dat, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19999 (8th Cir. July 9, 2026).*
Defendant can’t invoke Texas’s art. 38.23 exclusionary rule for an alleged illegal act before the alleged crime even occurred. Hram v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 6368 (Tex. App. – Amarillo July 8, 2026).*
Defendant knew he was under surveillance by police, so he installed a wooden privacy fence around his business property. So, police put a pole camera so they could look over the fence. The pole camera didn’t need a warrant. United States v. Kendrick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20108 (7th Cir. July 9, 2026).
There was a substantial basis for defendant’s search warrant for fentanyl distribution from defendant’s home that led to overdose deaths. The trial court’s suppression order is reversed, so the good faith exception doesn’t even need to be considered. State v. Gardner, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 382 (July 10, 2026).*
The government fails to show that defendant’s backpack was subject to a warrantless search. It’s not a valid search incident: “ In contrast, here, the video evidence shows that Ranney had already been arrested and taken inside prior to the search, Ranney’s backpack was not next to him during the search, the initial search lasted several minutes, and the contents of the backpack were left on a table for almost two hours after the search.” As to inventory, this search served no valid administrative goals. The exclusionary rule applies. “But here, there was no warrant. Therefore, the good faith exception … [is] inapplicable.” United States v. Ranney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151177 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2026).*
Posted inInventory, Pole cameras, Probable cause, Search incident|Comments Off on CA7: It wasn’t a 4A violation to place a pole camera to look over def’s fence he built knowing he was under surveillance
Conflict of laws: “The New Mexico exclusionary rule is grounded in effectuating the constitutional rights of individuals and is therefore applicable where out-of-state evidence is introduced in a New Mexico court.” Here, it was a search in Texas that resulted in a murder charge in New Mexico. State v. Causey, 2026 N.M. LEXIS 124 (July 8, 2026):
The government’s subpoena for defendant’s juvenile case records is granted. The government can show relevance and admissibility at trial. Defendant focuses on his Fourth Amendment claim which is rejected. No case says there is a reasonable expectation of privacy against disclosure in juvenile records. Therefore, disclosure is not a “search.” United States v. Silva, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149439 (D.N.M. July 7, 2026).
The record supports the trial court’s finding there was no exigency for dispensing with a warrant. It’s not the appellate court’s job to reweigh the evidence. State v. Ford, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5289 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2026).*
Defendant’s stop was for speeding both on the highway and in a construction zone. Upon smelling marijuana, it was not unreasonable for the officer to open the car door. State v. Jordan, 2026-Ohio-2625 (4th Dist. July 1, 2026).*
Sahan Journal: Minneapolis police drone debate draws packed crowds concerned about privacy by Mohamed Ibrahim (“Dozens of community members flooded Minneapolis City Hall Wednesday to express concerns about a proposed drone program for Minneapolis police. Nearly 50 people signed up to speak at the City Council’s public health, safety and equity committee meeting. Residents filled all of the seats in the council chambers reserved for the public, and an overflow room next door. ‘We just spent months enduring a brutal winter of military-equipped federal occupation and terrorization, and on the heels of that, you wish to provide military-grade drone tech to the cops in our already over-surveilled neighborhoods?’ said north Minneapolis resident Will Reely, referring to federal immigration enforcement during Operation Metro Surge. ‘You can’t be serious.’ Speakers said they don’t trust how the police would use drones, and are concerned the technology could be used as surveillance and lead to invasion of privacy.”)
Posted inDrones|Comments Off on Sahan Journal: Minneapolis police drone debate draws packed crowds concerned about privacy
A Google computer’s hash value match of a file passing through Google to a CSAM image then forwarded on to NCMEC was a private search. The court agrees with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding that the private search doctrine applies, and noting: “The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, to the contrary, that a hash-value match cannot constitute a valid private search.” United States v. Brillhart, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20138 (11th Cir. July 9, 2026):
Posted inComputer and cloud searches, Private search|Comments Off on CA11: Google computer’s CSAM hash value search and match was private search, noting circuit split
USA Today: Five GA cops used Flock cameras for personal searches, GBI says by Irene Wright (“Five police officers have been accused of using Flock license plate camera technology in South Georgia to make personal searches, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The officers, formerly with the Albany Police Department, were charged with misuse of license plate data and violation of oath of office in a July 6 statement from the bureau. Tytianna Davis, 27, faces six counts, Jade Jackson, 32, faces three counts, Nicholas Richardson, 30, faces 12 counts, Brittney Smith, 23, faces two counts, and Issac Whitus, 24, faces three counts.”)
Defendant showed that the administrative stop and inspection of this semi-truck was pretextual, without reasonable suspicion for the stop, and not in furtherance of the administrative program for truck inspections. Under Burger (its n.27), pretext can be an issue. United States v. Martinez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19808 (7th Cir. July 7, 2026):
DEA and State DTF officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant departing the NOLA airport for LAX (a source city) when he saw them as they looked all nervous and then walked away from boarding the airplane. State v. Wells, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1347 (La. App. 5 Cir July 7, 2026).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a Franks motion when defendant offers nothing to show it would have succeeded. Gilmore v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147995 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2026).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a digital search warrant that would not have succeeded. Smith v. State, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 427 (July 6, 2026).*
Plaintiff doesn’t show that the use of force here violated any clearly established law. Estate of Dismang v. Reed, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19614 (10th Cir. July 6, 2026).*
The grand jury subpoena for identifying details and contact information of every person who worked on the Fulton County 2020 general election is quashed. It’s apparent this is for an improper purpose, it’s way overbroad and intrusive (see F.R.Crim.P. 17 where subpoenas can be quashed if unreasonable and oppressive), and the five-year statute of limitations clearly has run, at the earliest, election certification day 2020. The government’s need for the information is low because it can’t extend the statute of limitations. The subpoena puts a high burden on the County, and it will deter people from every wanting to work elections in the future. Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections v. United States, 1:26-cv-02777-WMR (N.D. Ga. July 7, 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.
