The stop was not extended by the drug dog that arrived almost immediately and the sniff was done while the records check was going on. Alternatively, there was reasonable suspicion for it. United States v. Billips, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176422 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2026).
The GPS tracking warrant and search warrants were based on probable cause. United States v. Vega, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177407 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2026).*
During execution of a CSAM search warrant, officers detained defendant while they were holding rifles, and a reasonable person wouldn’t think he was free to leave. [Screenshot in opinion.] He was thus in custody when questioned and his statements are suppressed. The search warrant, however, is valid. United States v. Germano, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177330 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2026).*
There is a question of fact for trial on whether the defendant officer unreasonably used deadly force on plaintiff, and the qualified immunity appeal is dismissed. Tippitt v. Iversen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23944 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).*
Seizure of defendant’s Apple watch was valid incident to arrest because officers feared he could erase his iPhone with it. The traffic stop might have been pretextual, but it doesn’t matter because defendant had an arrest warrant on a federal indictment pending. As to a Franks challenge, defendant fails in his offer of proof. United States v. Avery, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177942 (E.D. Mo. July 2, 2026).
Defendant was stopped for driving his rental car too long in the passing lane. The car smelled of burnt marijuana. On the totality, including defendant’s priors for drugs, the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop because he suspected defendant was carrying drugs between Harrisburg and Lancaster. Commonwealth v. Gould, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 420 (Aug. 10, 2026).*
Defendant’s stop for a traffic offense was reasonable because there was a factual basis, no matter the officer’s motivation. Then reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Billips, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176422 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2026).*
Posted inPretext, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident|Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Seizure of def’s Apple watch was valid as a search incident because it could be used to erase iPhone
“Defendant was detained from approximately 4:45 a.m. until his release at around 7:00 a.m., a total duration of two hours and 15 minutes. … Having concluded that the initial detention was lawful, the Court must next address whether the detention was reasonable in length and scope. While facts support both sides of the argument, the two-hour timeline presents a close, borderline case because it exceeds the Tenth Circuit’s 90-minute reference point for investigative detentions and approaches a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. On balance, however, the Court leans toward the position that the detention remained constitutionally permissible.” United States v. Morales-Aguirre, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175394 (D.N.M. Aug. 6, 2026).
There was probable cause and exigency for seizure of defendant’s cell phone during a traffic stop in a drug investigation. The search warrant for the phone detailed the probable cause for its search. United States v. Veilleux, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176947 (D. Mont. Aug. 7, 2026).*
2255 petitioner’s Rule 60 motion that the court failed to consider his ineffective assistance of counsel on a Fourth Amendment claim is just wrong. It did. Benjamin v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176803 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 7, 2026).*
A U-Haul van was reported stolen by them, and the LPN was entered into the ALPR database. It showed up near Pittsburgh, and that was reasonable suspicion to pull it over. United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177108 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2026).
Defendant was detained in his own home during a search, and he would not consider himself free to leave for custody purposes. United States v. Cruz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176020 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026).*
Raising a Fourth Amendment claim for the first time in the request for the certificate of appealability of a 2255 is waiver. United States v. Najera, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23934 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).*
Defendant was involved in three controlled buys and that was probable cause for his arrest without a warrant, and his search incident was valid. State v. Daniels, 2026-Ohio-3050 (6th Dist. Aug. 7, 2026).*
U.S. District Judge affirms U.S.M.J.’s decision that cell tower dumps violated the Fourth Amendment. The request was essentially a geofence warrant without a showing of need. In re Four Applications for Search Warrants Seeking Info. Associated with Particular Cellular Towers, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176165 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 5, 2026):
Defendant was a suspect in a shooting incident. At the ER, his bloody shirt was collected as evidence. A separate search warrant wasn’t required to test the DNA on it. State v. Howze, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 652 (Aug. 5, 2026).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not objecting during voir dire to mention of informant recorded statements of the accused because there was no basis to exclude them. United States v. Hossain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175221 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026).*
Whether the first search warrant was valid is a moot point because nothing from it is being used in the case. [It was suspect, but moot.] The second search of defendant’s store for counterfeit goods was by consent. United States v. Vasquez-Yax, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175645 (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174947 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 6, 2026).*
Posted inConsent, DNA, Informant hearsay|Comments Off on NC: Def’s bloody shirt seized as evidence from ER didn’t need a SW to test for DNA
Defendant was a suspect in a drug investigation, and they got search warrants for his place and cell phones, not knowing even how many there were or what they looked like. The warrants were with probable cause. The search for drug trafficking information led to discovery of CSAM. The warrant was still particular because suspects could use false file names to hide things. United States v. Metzger, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23553 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026).
There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest for being involved in a fight (“scrum”) outside a DC nightclub. The officer’s testimony differed somewhat from the bodycam, but that’s not determinative because it was a mess and confusing. Even the bodycam wasn’t conclusive. United States v. Ray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174743 (D.D.C. July 31, 2026).*
The government’s 270-day delay in seeking a search warrant to search defendant’s packages wasn’t unreasonable enough to require suppression. He admittedly had a reduced privacy interest in them. United States v. Bennett, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23661 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2026).*
Compelling defendant to give up the combination of a safe in his shared dwelling to search it under a warrant violated the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Villarreal-Resendiz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174690 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026):
Plaintiff’s claim of being forced to do a drug test but not for protection of the children she cared for stated a claim and survived summary judgment. Knighton v. Benton Cty., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23741 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2026)*:
During a traffic stop, officers left defendant’s car door open apparently so the drug dog would go in, and it did. This entry violated the Fourth Amendment. Boyd v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 263 (Aug. 5, 2026).
The inventory of defendant’s rented vehicle was within policy and valid. State v. Haywood, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2905 (1st Dist. Aug. 5, 2026).*
Defendant was walking and seen likely with a gun on him, and officers approached. He fled, jumping a fence, but he was finally captured in a backyard. Officers found the hidden gun and one round in his pocket. He was not seized when he abandoned the gun. Hatcherson-Ross v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 265 (Aug. 6, 2026).*
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
"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.
