VA: Body cam video of valid arrest would be suppressed

Defendant doesn’t get to suppress the body cam of her detention where the officer told her to stand in one place and then she later assaulted the officer. It was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Ross v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 502 (Sep. 22, 2026).(

“‘The possibility that an officer ultimately may prove to be mistaken or that there may be an innocent explanation for the facts giving rise to the officer’s suspicion does not negate, in and of itself, the officer’s reasonable, articulable suspicion.’” Fults v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 509 (Sep. 22, 2026).*

Defendant’s detention for safety reasons turned into a frisk for weapons based on reasonable suspicion from his actions and the time of day and it being a high crime area. Tyler v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 499 (Sep. 22, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Body cameras, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on VA: Body cam video of valid arrest would be suppressed

NM: Trial court’s finding of consent is reversed because the court engaged in its own internet investigation beyond what the parties provided

The suppression order for defendant on coerced consent is reversed. The trial court engaged in its own research into facts to make the decision on acquiring the affidavit for a later warrant, the distance between things, and the temperature at the time from the weather service. Defendant’s consent was not shown to be coerced to standing outside without a coat on a cold December night for roughly six minutes. State v. Romero, 2026 N.M. App. LEXIS 67 (Sep. 21, 2026) (see Model Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.9(C), statutory in New Mexico; see ABA Formal Opinion 478).

The search of defendant’s vehicle pursuant to state law probation search waiver statute was reasonably conducted and didn’t need reasonable suspicion. United States v. Wilson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213645 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 31, 2026).*

Defendant had his backpack searched under a probation waiver agreement. It was decided as a lack of standing below, which was kind of understandable because of language in some cases. Instead, it’s just a Fourth Amendment waiver, and the search was valid. State v. Al-Mafrachi, 2026 Ida. LEXIS 135 (Sep. 22, 2026).*

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Probation / Parole search, Standards of review | Comments Off on NM: Trial court’s finding of consent is reversed because the court engaged in its own internet investigation beyond what the parties provided

Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules

Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules by Elizabeth Nolan Brown (“Cops keep carving out tech exceptions to the Fourth Amendment—and courts are giving them their blessing.”):

Continue reading
Posted in Automatic license plate readers, geofence | Comments Off on Reason: No Warrant, No Suspicion, No Problem: Flock and Border Cellphone Searches Excluded From 4th Amendment Rules

Reason: Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question

Reason: Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question by Del Schlangen (“Gun owners should be paying attention to how police use gunfire microphones in conjunction with license plate cameras.”):

Continue reading
Posted in Automatic license plate readers | Comments Off on Reason: Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question

N.D.Ohio: Car in driveway was on curtilage and plain view prohibited

Defendant backed into his driveway and that was curtilage. The police had neither a warrant nor exigent circumstances to come and look at his car to justify a plain view of an open container than led to finding a gun. United States v. Odom, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213316 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 21, 2026). (Also, fn.3: “The Sixth Circuit has suggested, albeit without expressly holding, that ‘regularly parking’ in an area ‘arguably’ supports a finding of curtilage under the use-of-the-area Dunn factor, at least if coupled with the ‘legal right to exclude others.’ …. If this principle is correct, that is another mark in favor of curtilage, as Odom parks on his driveway and has the right to ask others to leave his property. See Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2049, 225 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2026) (acknowledging ‘the undisputed principle that the owner of private property is generally free to exclude anyone from entering without consent’). Because it is not fully clear if the Sixth Circuit has endorsed this idea, however, the Court does not rely on it.”).

Inevitable discovery applied here because defendant’s vehicle was subject to tow when the police decided to conduct a dog sniff. United States v. Benavides, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213358 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2026).*

In Ohio, ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be made on appeal if they could be. Here, it came up post-conviction, but the court concludes it was available all along, so it’s now barred by res judicata. State v. Allen, 2026-Ohio-3691 (3d Dist. Sep. 21, 2026).*

Posted in Curtilage, Inevitable discovery, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Car in driveway was on curtilage and plain view prohibited

PA: 18 U.S.C. § 2558A doesn’t mandate social media searches, only reporting what they discover; still a private search

The searches of social media by Facebook and Google then reported to NCMEC were private searches. The fact there’s a duty to report that which they find doesn’t mean any searches were mandated by government. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2026 PA Super 209 (Sep. 21, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Private search | Comments Off on PA: 18 U.S.C. § 2558A doesn’t mandate social media searches, only reporting what they discover; still a private search

D.Mont.: Delay of USPS Express Mail for dog sniff didn’t violate 4A

With no guaranteed delivery time on a USPS Express Mail package, briefly delaying it in transit to look up the names on it (sender and recipient and addresses) didn’t violate any Fourth Amendment rights. Separating it for a dog sniff didn’t either. United States v. Diiorio, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212479 (D. Mont. Sep. 18, 2026).

Louisiana recognizes broad standing, more so than the Fourth Amendment. The search of a neighbor’s flower bed for a shell casing was reasonable. No violation of curtilage. [So they say, and I can’t agree.] State v. Bethune, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1851 (La. App. 5 Cir Sep. 17, 2026).*

An allegation of excessive force during a warranted arrest is a sufficiently new Bivens context that it’s dismissed. FTCA claim can proceed. Coote v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212690 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 14, 2026).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Curtilage, Dog sniff, Mail and packages | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Delay of USPS Express Mail for dog sniff didn’t violate 4A

S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

Officers came to defendant’s house without an arrest or search warrant to arrest him for a CSAM offense. He answered the door in his underwear. They asked about cell phone and saw it and seized it. Payton applies, and the phone is suppressed. There were no exigent circumstances, and the plain view exception can’t be bootstrapped here. United States v. Miller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212349 (S.D. W. Va. Sep. 18, 2026).

“To be sure, the application presented a close call as to probable cause. But once the state court judge made that call, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to rely on it.” United States v. Mayence, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211698 (W.D. La. Aug. 19, 2026).*

“The Court finds a stop occurred but reasonable suspicion existed. The characteristics of the area, proximity to the border, information about the vehicle, usual pattern of local traffic, time of day, and behavior of the vehicle, together with reasonable inferences of an experienced Border Patrol agent, support BPA Brown’s reasonable suspicion that this vehicle had traveled from Phoenix to a pickup area, had picked up illegal aliens, and was traveling back to Phoenix or elsewhere with its passengers.” United States v. Florendo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212272 (D. Ariz. Aug. 25, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Good faith exception, immigration stops, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

OH2: Parking on the grass justified stop

Parking on the grass justified this stop. State v. Green, 2026-Ohio-3654 (2d Dist. Sep. 18, 2026).*

On the totality, defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, and it was not unreasonably extended. State v. Livesay, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 619 (Sep. 17, 2026).*

Stopping a bicycle with no light or red reflector was reasonable. United States v. Peralta, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211945 (D. Ariz. Sep. 18, 2026).*

Defendant’s phone was inevitably discovered during the search of his house, so the seizure was valid. He was also interrogated in his bedroom in his underwear by four armed officers. This was custody for Miranda. United States v. Frazier, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212109 (D. Mass. Sep. 18, 2026).*

Posted in Custody, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on OH2: Parking on the grass justified stop

CA11: NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support PC and the GFE

NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support probable cause and the good faith exception. United States v. Gibbs, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28546 (11th Cir. Sep. 17, 2026).

Even if plaintiff could show that the official’s conduct was wrongful and something should be suppressed, the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases. Winnick v. City of Fort Worth, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 8839 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Sep. 17, 2026).*

Defendant put a gun in a bag in the back of a pickup truck and walked away from it. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what he apparently abandoned in the back of the truck. Commonwealth v. Serrano, 2026 PA Super 205 (Sep. 18, 2026).* [The court spent too much time on whether he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the back of the truck and who had the burden on that since it was going with abandonment.]

Posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: NCMEC’s cybertips are reliable enough to support PC and the GFE

MS: Execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get suspect’s CSLI

Defendant’s allegedly committing an execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get his CSLI at that moment to locate him. Carpenter recognized exigency exceptions. Anderson v. State, 2026 Miss. App. LEXIS 406 (Sep. 15, 2026).

Defendant ran a motel and the police were called about a disturbance, which seemed to be a regular thing there, and defendant was often the instigator. He was ultimately Tazed in what he contended was a private part of the property, his back office and residence. The police were reasonable in all they did, and, as noted at oral argument, what about inevitable discovery? Here, it’s all on the hotel surveillance video, and the police would have gotten it in due course, as they usually did. State v. Trivedi, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 612 (Sep. 16, 2026).*

This 2254 on ineffective assistance of counsel on search claims fails because none of the searches were illegal. It led off with pole camera observation of him removing methamphetamine from under his car, and that led to searching location data. He says it was from an “unlawful investigation,” but it clearly was not. Freeman v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208788 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 15, 2026).*

Posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on MS: Execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get suspect’s CSLI

OH1: Statute says ID can’t be sought when def in back of police car because it’s not a “public place”

While identification can be sought during a stop on reasonable suspicion under Hiibel under the Fourth Amendment, state statute says “public place,” and the back of a police car isn’t. State v. Bell, 2026-Ohio-3614 (1st Dist. Sep. 16, 2026).

2254 successor petitioner raised his lack of discovery of his Fourth Amendment claim in his original petition, so it’s barred. In re Surles, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28366 (11th Cir. Sep. 15, 2026).*

Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim of violation of an order of protection is dismissed as legally frivolous and based on probable cause. The district court decided it on Heck grounds. Dougal v. Cty. of Saratoga, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28285 (2d Cir. Sep. 16, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on OH1: Statute says ID can’t be sought when def in back of police car because it’s not a “public place”

CA3: Strip search outside of jail without SW or exigency violates 4A, but QI here

Strip search of an arrestee outside of a jail without warrant or exigency violates the Fourth Amendment, but the officer gets qualified immunity. Beatty v. Gardner, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28373 (3d Cir. Sep. 16, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Qualified immunity, Strip search | Comments Off on CA3: Strip search outside of jail without SW or exigency violates 4A, but QI here

CA3: Ptfs pled a 4A claim for CPS workers demanding entry without sufficient exigency

Plaintiffs plausibly pled violations of the Fourth Amendment for child protective services demanding and gaining entry into the home without a sufficient showing of exigency to protect the children. Also, the special needs doctrine doesn’t apply here. O’Bryant v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28393 (3d Cir. Sep. 16, 2026).

Officers had probable cause to believe that defendant parolee was staying in the apartment searched by his parole officer. Dunbar v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209950 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 15, 2026).*

The officer had cause to stop defendant for stopping past the white line. The traffic stop related inquiries developed a likely warrant, and the officer was waiting to confirm and didn’t yet write the ticket because of the possibility of defendant going into custody. Ultimately, reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Eaker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209541 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 16, 2026).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA3: Ptfs pled a 4A claim for CPS workers demanding entry without sufficient exigency

M.D.Pa.: Water Authority’s entry onto curtilage to cut off water for nonpayment was not an unreasonable search

Entering the curtilage to turn off water service for nonpayment of the bill is not a Fourth Amendment seizure or entry. Holland v. Jersey Shore Area Joint Water Auth., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209672 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 16, 2026)*:

Continue reading
Posted in Curtilage | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Water Authority’s entry onto curtilage to cut off water for nonpayment was not an unreasonable search

D.N.J.: Pretrial detainee’s cell search and seizure of papers caused no prejudice nor revealed legal strategies

Defendant was in a federal detention center pending trial, and his cell was searched and legal materials for trial were seized. His Fourth Amendment claim fails on its face. His Sixth Amendment claim also fails because a BOP attorney screened the materials, and defendant doesn’t show that his representation was interfered with. Byrd v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209953 (D.N.J. Sep. 16, 2026). [Thus, the attorney was a de facto master.]

Pausing 11 seconds after a traffic light turned green was not reasonable suspicion of OVI. City of Cleveland v. McClairn, 2026-Ohio-3641 (8th Dist. Sep. 17, 2026).*

“Defendant’s statement to Officer Habenicht—‘That’s not my bag, you won’t find no ID of mine in there!’—is functionally indistinguishable from the disclaimer the Fourth Circuit found dispositive in Ferebee, where the defendant’s assertion that a backpack was ‘actually not his’ completed an abandonment the moment it was uttered.” United States v. White, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209926 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 16, 2026).*

Posted in Abandonment, Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Pretrial detainee’s cell search and seizure of papers caused no prejudice nor revealed legal strategies

CA2: Warrantless cell phone border search valid

Defendant, a permanent resident, was suspected of a multimillion dollar fraud with false identities. He was stopped at JFK coming back and his phone was seized and searched helping make the case against him. No warrant was needed for the border search of this cell phone. United States v. Alisigwe, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28444 (2d Cir. Sep. 17, 2026).

Plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief is disclaimed not to be a domestic relations appeal from state to federal court. It’s barred by abstention and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Bonsignore v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208666 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026).*

Plaintiff’s interactions with the Fort Smith animal control officers with an alleged arrest without probable cause doesn’t rise to the level of serious bad faith to avoid Younger abstention. Steffy v. City of Fort Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210512 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 17, 2026).*

Posted in Abstention, Border search, Cell phones | Comments Off on CA2: Warrantless cell phone border search valid

OH1: RS for stop on a prostitution 911 call even though def was significantly older than the person described in the call

Officers got a 911 call about potential prostitution with a woman approaching cars at an intersection known for that. It turned out she was significantly older than the person described in the 911 call, but there still was reasonable suspicion for the contact. State v. Doherty, 2026-Ohio-3615 (1st Dist. Sep. 16, 2026).*

The officer regularly surveilled a gas station where people would congregate but not buy gas. When there was a mass of cars leaving at one time without buying gas, he concluded the drug trade was over and followed defendant’s car. With two traffic violations he stopped it. The fact he had mixed motives for the stop was still reasonable suspicion. State v. Shabazz, 2026-Ohio-3630 (8th Dist. Sep. 17, 2026).*

The identified informant’s tip that defendant put a stolen gun and license plate in his car was probable cause after the officer confirmed defendant was a felon. United States v. Digsby, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28508 (4th Cir. Sep. 17, 2026).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH1: RS for stop on a prostitution 911 call even though def was significantly older than the person described in the call

NC: Standing to contest search of hotel room doesn’t include other guest’s cell phone

As a guest of a guest, defendant had standing to contest the search of the hotel room, but he didn’t have standing to contest the search of the other tenant’s cell phone. State v. Miller, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 763 (Sep. 16, 2026).

Use of a Taser on defendant at this arrest was reasonable under the circumstances, not that it would reverse his conviction anyway. Calloway v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 438 (Sep. 15, 2026).*

2255 petitioner doesn’t show how defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress because he doesn’t show that it had merit or would have changed his decision to plead guilty. Alston v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208093 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Standing | Comments Off on NC: Standing to contest search of hotel room doesn’t include other guest’s cell phone

N.D.Ohio: Not detailed enough inventory is not unreasonable

Too detailed an inventory not unreasonable. “Lynch offers no argument to suggest that his vehicle was not properly subject to the tow policy and its accompanying inventory search. Instead, Lynch appears to take issue with the manner in which Officer Wolk conducted the inventory search. More specifically, Lynch appears to contend that Officer Wolk’s failure to inventory every item in the vehicle somehow transformed the legal and permissible inventory search to an unlawful, warrantless investigatory search. The Court finds no merit in this contention.” United States v. Lynch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207809 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 15, 2026).*

There was conflicting evidence, but it’s not clear there wasn’t probable cause for arrest. Thus, qualified immunity. Wadkins v. Klingshirn, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 28240 (6th Cir. Sep. 14, 2026).*

Respondent showed no reasonable expectation of privacy in a video on someone else’s SD card. State v. Catherine, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1815 (La. App. 1 Cir Sep. 14, 2026).*

Posted in Inventory, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Not detailed enough inventory is not unreasonable