Plaintiff misunderstands Kyllo and Jardines. Just because the officer’s bodycam showed his house doesn’t mean an illegal entry onto the curtilage occurred. Corbett v. Vargas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161409 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2026).*
Defendant wasn’t yet seized when he chose to flee. United States v. Gill, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161814 (N.D. Miss. July 16, 2026).*
The affidavit for warrant was so lacking in probable cause that it could not even support the good faith exception. Motion to suppress granted. People of the V.I. v. Ayala, 2026 V.I. LEXIS 36 (Super. Ct. July 13, 2026).*
Defendant was arrested for drugs outside his place, but officers had reason to believe there were others inside who were aware of the arrest and might destroy evidence. Officers did not yet have a warrant but were going to get one. The protective sweep was valid, and the later warrant was an independent source. United States v. Wright, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21741 (2d Cir. July 22, 2026).*
The warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone was reasonable because he was a supervised release. The timing of the search after the seizure of the phone was also reasonable. United States v. Yama, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160332 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2026).
The seizure and search of two laptops were reasonable as border searches and by consent. United States v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161714 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2026).
This CSAM warrant was issued and executed in this district, so the court has venue over offenses found, despite some other counts potentially being in other districts. United States v. Lee, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161582 (E.D. Va. July 20, 2026).*
“To prove the lawful arrest element of resisting arrest where the resisted arrest is premised on an arrest or bench warrant, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of the validity of a warrant beyond its mere existence. Because the Commonwealth failed to produce any evidence of the warrants’ validity in this case, the evidence was insufficient to sustain Steadly’s conviction for resisting arrest.” Just being in a database doesn’t mean an arrest warrant is valid. It could have been recalled or already served but not cleared out. Commonwealth v. Steadly, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 1268 (July 21, 2026).
“First, although Defendant broadly claims that the representations in the paragraphs contained in the ‘Prior Applications’ section of the affidavits were false or misleading, he does not pinpoint any particular statement in those paragraphs which is supposedly false or misleading. Instead, Defendant alleges that those paragraphs were designed to portray a large-scale drug trafficking network led by him, which did not exist. Defendant’s vague, unsupported assertion is insufficient to warrant relief under Franks.” United States v. Maragh, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161604 (W.D. Pa. July 21, 2026).*
In a domestic dispute, officers had exigent circumstances to enter on the totality of circumstances. Defendant challenged them one-by-one, but the totality applies. State v. Friscia, 2026 MT 158 (July 21, 2026).
It was not reasonably subject to dispute that plaintiffs continued to resist after being handcuffed and on the ground such that other force was necessary. Post-arrest, “And even if we might agree with them that some of the deputies’ conduct and statements escalated the situation by being unnecessarily condescending or disrespectful, an officer’s subjective state of mind does not make an otherwise reasonable use of force unconstitutional.” Hayes v. Owen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21601 (10th Cir. July 21, 2026).*
The warrantless search of defendant’s house was valid because he was on supervised release with a search condition. United States v. Woolf, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161574 (D. Idaho July 20, 2026).*
The Pennsylvania Constitution’s search and seizure provision extends to “possessions,” something broader than “effects” under the Fourth Amendment. The Pennsylvania court concludes that private hunting lands were not blanket open fields where wildlife officers could just enter. The court also looked to other states who also similarly limited the open fields doctrine. Punxsutawney Hunting Club, Inc. v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 1275 (July 21, 2026), overruling Commonwealth v. Russo, 594 Pa. 119, 934 A.2d 1199 (2007).
“The District Court correctly concluded that the warrant affidavit, as reconstructed, still establishes probable cause to search the entirety of 308 Walnut Avenue. To correct the warrant affidavit, we replace the words ‘New Jersey Department of Taxation’ with ‘NJParcels.com.’ We also add that: the owner does not live at the address; there are two utility meters, two mailboxes, and different-colored doors; and a female is registered to vote there. These additional facts may raise questions about the reliability of the affiant’s characterization of the property. But they do not impact the probable cause analysis, particularly when the affidavit included information that both doors of the property were used in connection with drug transactions.” Underwood v. Camden, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21549 (3d Cir. July 21, 2026).*
In executing a search warrant in a murder case, officers looking for evidence of occupancy authorized by the warrant perused defendant’s journals. Not finding evidence of occupancy, they found other potential leads and applied for a warrant to read the journals. Some became evidence at trial. That warrant was valid, and the police followed prior similar cases. Drumgold v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 389 (July 21, 2026):
Posted inScope of search, Warrant execution|Comments Off on VA: SW that included “evidence of occupancy” could peruse def’s journals; that led to SW for them
Voluntary statement from the handcuffed defendant during the search of his house when he saw his handcuffed girlfriend crying that “everything is mine” were admissible. United States v. Espinosa, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160387 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2026).
Defendant’s Franks motion failed because he didn’t show that the affidavit’s statements about his prior firearm possession were false or misleading in context, failed to demonstrate the affiant acted with intent to mislead, and failed to prove the omission that Lopez never touched firearms when visiting gun stores was material to the probable cause determination for the search warrant. United States v. Lopez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21356 (4th Cir. July 20, 2026).*
The court concludes that the bodycam not showing defendant’s gun in the door of his vehicle is not determinative. The bodycam was positioned at least a foot below the officer’s eyes, and the court credits that the officer could see it even if the bodycam didn’t. The seizure of the firearm was reasonable. United States v. Martinez-Rivas, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160367 (N.D. Ala. June 12, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157907 (N.D. Ala. July 15, 2026).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint over a roadside vaginal body cavity search concededly states enough to go forward as a potential Fourth Amendment violation. Some of the state claims fail. Upton v. Moulds, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159277 (S.D. Miss. July 17, 2026).*
“Fruit of the poisonous tree is an evidentiary doctrine that, while premised on the Fourth Amendment, is not itself a claim or cause of action. See United States v. Gorman, 859 F.3d 706, 716 (9th Cir. 2017). This claim must be dismissed without leave to amend, as amendment would be futile.” Knarr v. Marteeny, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160043 (D. Or. July 20, 2026).*
Defendant is correct that the CI’s information alone wasn’t enough here for a warrant. But it was combined with two observed hand-to-hand sales, and combined that was enough. United States v. Ward, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21224 (6th Cir. July 17, 2026).*
The exclusionary rule will not be applied in judicial discipline proceedings. In re Knapp, 2026 Md. LEXIS 330 (July 17, 2026).
The affidavit for the warrant may have been weak, but more information was given to the issuing magistrate which could be considered, so at least the good faith exception applies. United States v. Blue, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21231 (6th Cir. July 17, 2026).*
“Defendant argues that the encounter was never consensual and became an unlawful stop when the officers targeted him, circled the block, approached him, ordered him to remove his hand from his pocket, and secured the firearm. The Government responds that the initial contact began as a mere encounter and became an investigative detention only after officers confirmed the presence of a firearm and Defendant failed to produce a permit. [¶] The Court need not decide the precise moment the encounter became a seizure. Even assuming Defendant was seized at the earliest point supported by the record, the officers already had reasonable suspicion by then.” United States v. Chappelle, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159210 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2026).*
LATimes: Ex-L.A. County sheriff’s deputy gets prison time for using search warrant for a private client by Brittny Mejia (“A former L.A. County sheriff’s deputy was sentenced to a year in prison for lying on a search warrant to secretly track a private client’s estranged husband during a bitter divorce. Prosecutors say David Anthony Rodriguez abused his badge by falsely claiming he needed robbery-suspect GPS data, then sharing location pings that enabled co-conspirators to tow the man’s car, plant a tracker and send threats. Rodriguez is among several current and former deputies tied to wealthy crypto figure Adam ‘The Godfather’ Iza, whose widening case has already produced prison terms and pending sentencings for multiple alleged co-conspirators.”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on LATimes: Ex-L.A. County sheriff’s deputy gets prison time for using search warrant for a private client
Privacy Daily: Chatrie’s Clarification to Fourth Amendment a Win for Privacy, Experts Say by Kara Thompson (“While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Chatrie v. United States was a win for privacy and clarified Fourth Amendment rights in the modern world, it’s unclear how much it will affect future warrants, said panelists during a webinar Thursday hosted by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ (NACDL) Fourth Amendment Center, the R Street Institute and the AI and Justice Consortium…. Michael Price, litigation director for the NACDL Fourth Amendment Center, zeroed in on Justice Elena Kagan’s use of the phrase ‘the virtual panopticon’ when authoring the majority opinion, which she said describes the ‘surveillance ecosystem that we live in today.'”)
Posted ingeofence, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on Privacy Daily: Chatrie’s Clarification to Fourth Amendment a Win for Privacy, Experts Say
Defendant was detained, but not arrested, for over half an hour, and the court finds it was without reasonable suspicion, and the result should be suppressed. United States v. Vue, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158591 (D. Alaska July 17, 2026).
“[Officer] Mowry stopped Denby after she was waved down by someone who told her that ‘he was in an altercation with’ Denby and that Denby was ‘threatening him.’ This report gave Mowry a particularized and objective basis to suspect that Denby had violated Nebraska law. … Thus, no unlawful seizure occurred.” United States v. Denby, 24-3483 (8th Cir. July 17, 2026).*
Plaintiff is a customer of Adam & Eve’s online sex toy store. They claim that they protect the privacy of their customers, but he alleges they did not and sold his information. He’s stated enough to have standing and the case will proceed to discovery. Delong v. Phe, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158534 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2026).*
“This case raises the familiar, but always troubling, question whether someone can be prosecuted for despicable criminal conduct using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Here, officers conducting a search of Defendant John Holcomb’s computer, pursuant to a warrant, continued to search even after they learned that probable cause had ceased to exist, and they found damning evidence of a different crime only after probable cause had dissipated. In the circumstances, respect for the Constitution and the rule of law requires suppression of the evidence.” The officers were looking for evidence of a rape and what they found showed no rape occurred. Therefore, the search should have stopped. United States v. Holcomb, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21201 (9th Cir. July 17, 2026) (2-1).
“[W]e find the facts of this case provided a reasonable basis to believe that the bags paired with Respondent’s action to crumble up a narcotic pill were consistent with drug trafficking. As such, the officers had sufficient probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception.” State v. Williams, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1437 (La. App. 4 Cir 06/16/26).*
Defendant’s claim the government took too long (22 months) to search his cell phone was waived by his not timely filing his motion to suppress. United States v. Bigbee, No. 24-3160 (8th Cir. July 17, 2026).*
Defendant is accused of an illegal gambling operation in his home. The search warrant for software on the computer device is fatally overbroad. The warrant swept up everything, was overbroad, and the good faith exception did not apply. United States v. Zavala, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158991 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2026):
Plaintiff built a seawall on an inland lake without a permit. State environmental inspectors came to look and referred him for a violation of regulations. He sued in federal court for Fourth Amendment trespass. Despite it being clear the inspector entered the curtilage, the inspector gets qualified immunity, and the case is dismissed. No clearly established law. Thomson v. Peterson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156989 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2026).*
The trial court erred in suppressing defendant’s stop. There was, in fact, reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Pittman, 351 Or. App. 474 (July 15, 2026).*
“The warrant to search Proctor’s cell phone was an unlawfully overbroad and unparticularized general warrant because the warrant failed to provide sufficient guidance to investigating officers and instead granted unfettered discretion to rummage through the voluminous data contained within her cell phone. However, the limited evidence from the cell phone admitted at trial was ultimately harmless error.” State v. Proctor, 2026 MT 150 (July 14, 2026).*
The search warrant for defendant’s house included his tent outside. Gardner v. Miranda, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153610 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2026).
The officer had reasonable suspicion for a stop, so the “new crime” rationale the court of appeals adopted was unnecessary to be decided. State v. Morgan, 2026 N.M. LEXIS 128 (July 13, 2026).*
“In this case, police had obtained warrants to track the location of two of Mr. Moore’s phones and several of his vehicles and were actively monitoring his location in the hours preceding the traffic stop. … The Court makes no conclusion on the applicability of Chatrie to LPR technology but notes that, even if the use of LPR technology violates the Fourth Amendment, the inevitable discovery doctrine likely applies to the facts here because the police were already tracking Mr. Moore through independent (and warranted) means.” United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156382 (D. Minn. July 15, 2026).*
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on 404 Media: Flock: LAPD Regularly Pulled Over Innocent People Because License Plate Readers Flagged Their Cars As Stolen
The first search warrant was based on a bare-bones arrest affidavit. Two guns were seized and a third left behind. The seizure of the third gun was valid by the independent source doctrine. “Because investigators would have sought and obtained the search warrant even if the arrest had never occurred, we affirm the district court’s denial of Gray’s renewed suppression motion.” United States v. Gray, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20510 (6th Cir. July 13, 2026).*
There was reasonable suspicion for search under a supervised release search condition. “Notwithstanding the reasons why the witness’s report might reasonably be questioned, there are sufficient indicia that it was credible that the USPO’s reliance on it was reasonable. While the witness in this case did not make her report in person, Officer Gaines was able to assess her demeanor, albeit not physically. Moreover, the witness in this case did not hide her identity and, ‘thereby subject[ed herself] to possible repercussions if [her] allegations were found to be false.’” United States v. Hamilton, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154822 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2026).*
Posted inIndependent source, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on CA6: Despite two guns being suppressed from arrest on bare-bones arrest affidavit, third gun was later validly seized by independent source
The government’s motion to reconsider of a granted motion to suppress presents theories that should have been in its original responses and not now. United States v. Cleckley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155016 (D. Md. July 14, 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.
