While small amounts of marijuana are legal in Ohio, driving under the influence is not, so the smell of burnt marijuana in a vehicle is probable cause. Also, a blunt was seen in the ashtray. State v. Sawyer, 2026-Ohio-2913 (1st Dist. July 29, 2026).
The affidavit for warrant was supported by probable cause, and the good faith exception applies even if it did not. United States v. Howell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165780 (N.D. Iowa July 27, 2026) (R&R).*
“[G]iven the safety and reliability of the methodology for obtaining a buccal sample and the unavailability of less intrusive means to collect defendant’s exemplar, this Court finds that, on balance, the record supports granting the People’s motion to compel a saliva sample from defendant by buccal swab, and for its use in DNA testing and comparison with the specimen identified in forensic biology case file number F25-06377.” People v. Griiffin, 2026 NYLJ LEXIS 1095 (Bronx Co. June 16, 2026), published July 27, 2026.*
Hearsay may be relied upon in a suppression hearing, and the confrontation clause doesn’t apply. United States v. Albert, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168169 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 2026):
The third-party doctrine doesn’t apply to data a computer user stores in the cloud. State v. Klaus, 351 Or. App. 738 (July 29, 2026) (Oregon’s decision page currently unavailable):
Yahoo Tech: Can you be prosecuted for wiping your phone at the border? by Dan Thorp-Lancaster (“An activist is being prosecuted for activating a “duress code” that wiped his phone during an airport interrogation. Here’s what you need to know.”)
Posted inBorder search|Comments Off on Yahoo Tech: Can you be prosecuted for wiping your phone at the border?
The trial court didn’t err in refusing to unseal part of the search warrant affidavit that disclosed the identity of the CI because the state informer privilege applied. The sealing issue still gets reviewed on appeal where the court of appeals makes its own determination. People v. Vasquez, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 451 (4th Dist. July 27, 2026).
The officer’s reasonable mistake about the basis for his stop did not warrant suppression under Heien. State v. Dunch, 2026-Ohio-2868 (11th Dist. July 27, 2026).*
Defendant’s arrest for robbery was with probable cause, and his backpack was lawfully searched incident to the arrest. State v. Strattman, 2026-Ohio-2863 (12th Dist. July 27, 2026).*
The officer here was conversing with the passenger in defendant’s car, but that was not a seizure of the driver until they were ordered out of the car at gunpoint. United States v. Murphy, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165128 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2026).*
It was reasonable for officers to search a shed on the curtilage; it was within the scope of the search warrant. United States v. Torres-Benitez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165162 (D.P.R. July 24, 2026).
The CI said he could get drugs off defendant, and the police used electronic surveillance to monitor the transactions. That was probable cause. People v. Dacosta, 2026 NY Slip Op 04532, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752 (3rd Dept. July 23, 2026).*
Not providing counsel before a BAC blood draw is not a structural error. State v. Stempel, 2026 Ariz. App. LEXIS 145 (July 24, 2026).*
There was probable cause and nexus to defendant’s computer for CSAM based on it having TOR browsing software for secrecy and admissions defendant made. State v. Quam, 2026 ND 145 (July 24, 2026).*
Payton v. New York does not apply to an arrest in a common area of an apartment building. People v. Kadenhead, 2026 NY Slip Op 04680 (4th Dept. July 24, 2026).
There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest on a warrant, and the officer called others to verify that it existed. Eacholes v. State, 2026 Miss. LEXIS 200 (July 23, 2026).*
The officer was reasonable but mistaken in stopping defendant for not having a light on his bicycle at night. His argument centered on whether the stop was reasonably extended, but the record doesn’t show that was preserved for appeal on the conditional plea. Glenn v. State, 2026 WY 85 (July 24, 2026).*
A Darden hearing on the existence of a CI for the search warrant was unnecessary where the officer’s information alone was sufficient to show probable cause. People v. Anderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 04666 (4th Dept. July 24, 2026).*
This being a warrantless search during a traffic stop with a drug dog, the state bore the burden of proof on justification for detention for the dog sniff, and it failed to show that the stop was lawfully continued. Reversed. Hudson v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5681 (Fla. 5th DCA July 24, 2026).
2255 petitioner doesn’t show that defense counsel was ineffective for (1) not filing a motion to suppress or (2) that it would even prevail. Therefore, no prejudice. United States v. McIntosh, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163234 (D. Minn. July 23, 2026).*
There was probable cause for the search warrant for defendant’s cell phone and where it was. Two calls were made from it after he’d been arrested, and the officers believed they had the location. Defendant’s Franks challenge fails for failing to show materiality. United States v. Livigni, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162837 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2026).*
Posted inBorder search, Cell phones|Comments Off on TechCrunch: US accuses American of allegedly wiping his phone using a ‘duress’ password during border search
Michigan, by ballot initiative, made possession of a small amount of marijuana a civil infraction. The smell of marijuana here only appeared to be a civil infraction and not a crime, so the automobile exception did not justify the search of defendant’s car for evidence of a crime. People v. Wilkins, 2026 Mich. LEXIS 1461 (July 22, 2026). From the syllabus by the court:
Posted inAutomobile exception, Probable cause|Comments Off on MI: Possession of MJ that’s only a civil infraction doesn’t justify search of car under automobile exception
“The record supports the court’s conclusion that the warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment was justified under the emergency doctrine …. The officers received a 911 call reporting that someone was shot in the building; found a bullet on the floor in the caller’s apartment which, based on its trajectory, appeared to have originated from defendant’s apartment directly overhead; and detected the odor of gunpowder coming from defendant’s apartment, indicating that a firearm was recently discharged from within that unit.” Defendant’s curious responses to questions added to it. Looking on the fire escape was also reasonable, and there was the gun. People v. Santiago, 2026 NY Slip Op 04560, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4736 (1st Dept. July 23, 2026).
Officers had probable cause to believe that defendant with a parole search condition resided in a trailer on property, and the search of the property was reasonable. He was put there by his GPS monitor. United States v. Pereda, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21912 (9th Cir. July 23, 2026) (2-1).*
Posted inEmergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on NY1: 911 call about shooting in apartment building led officers to def’s apartment and exigency justified entry
Officers applied for a search warrant that should have been for a nighttime search but omitted that, and that violated a state rule. If they’d sought permission for a nighttime search they likely would have gotten it. The trial court suppressed solely because of the rule violation. Reversed. There’s a three-factor test: “a violation of our criminal procedure rules requires suppression in only three circumstances: where (1) the rule violation also violates the federal Constitution; (2) the officer acts in bad faith; or (3) the warrant would not have been granted—or execution would have been less abrasive—had the rule been complied with.” The rule violation was for none of these. State v. Jaramillo, 2026 UT 20, 2026 Utah LEXIS 105 (July 23, 2026).
“Here, the officers did not prolong the traffic stop beyond its lawful purpose. They took Risper’s license, asked him where he was going, and asked him to step out of his vehicle and for consent to pat him down—all permissible requests. … The officer’s request for him to step away from his door was permissible too, because this request promoted the same safety concerns which allowed the officer to ask him to exit the vehicle in the first place.” United States v. Risper, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21840 (6th Cir. July 21, 2026).*
“The Court agrees with Mr. Newby that the ADU [accessory dwelling unit] was its own residence—not curtilage—and therefore required its own probable cause finding. By authorizing the search of both residences, the warrant was indeed defective. But crucially, law enforcement did not actually search the ADU, and its inclusion in the search warrant was an honest and reasonable mistake. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule exists for precisely this type of situation.” United States v. Newby, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162720 (D. Idaho July 21, 2026).
“Wilcox is correct that the affidavit does include several generalizations regarding the habits of drug dealers and the use of stash houses. However, none of that information is necessary to find that the affidavit established a nexus between the residence and the likelihood that evidence of drug trafficking would be found there.” United States v. Wilcox, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162111 (N.D. Ohio July 22, 2026).*
Defendant’s attempted jaywalking stop led to his flight and subsequent arrest. United States v. Fowler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162460 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2026).*
Posted inParticularity, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.Idaho: Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on property is a separate living quarters requiring separate PC and nexus
The officer’s sticking his head in the defendant’s car window was a search. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162708 (D.D.C. July 22, 2026).
In this 2255, petitioner claims the officer pulled up next to him, told him he would be frisked, so he fled. He was not seized. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162485 (D.S.C. July 22, 2026).*
Defendant was at a DC restaurant for a gender reveal party, and he became disruptive and wanted to fight. The manager called 911 and four Secret Service officers monitoring the channel were the first to arrive. Defendant ended up struggling with the officers when he refused to leave, and the officers thought he was reaching for a gun, so he was put on the floor. A gun was found under him when he was stood up. The whole event was reasonable. United States v. West, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162703 (D.D.C. July 22, 2026).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Search, Seizure|Comments Off on D.D.C.: Officer sticking head in car window was a search, and here unreasonable
Defendants used Facebook to discuss their criminal enterprise, and the warrant for Facebook was not overbroad. United States v. Fordham, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21811 (6th Cir. July 22, 2026).*
A controlled buy arranged through defendant’s cell phone supported the warrant to track it. United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161950 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2026).*
Going to a controlled buy and coming home after is nexus for the home. United States v. Rash, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162139 (N.D. Ohio July 22, 2026).*
The subject premises was a three-unit building, and the affidavit was specific as to which one was to be searched, with attached photographs. Defendant’s overbreadth challenge fails. United States v. Jimenez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162331 (D. Mass. July 22, 2026).*
Defendant and his passenger were stopped for a traffic offense about midnight. While defendant was cooperative, the passenger fled, and the officer could handcuff defendant until he knew more about what was going on. Then reasonable suspicion developed. Horner v. State, 2026 Iowa App. LEXIS 639 (July 22, 2026).*
“Instead of arresting Still, the police officer directed Still toward the exit by grabbing Still’s wrist then placing one hand on Still’s elbow. The officer did not exert any further force. Because this action was objectively reasonable, there was no Fourth Amendment violation.” Still v. City of Longview, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21778 (9th Cir. July 22, 2026).*
Here there were a tracking warrant and search warrant. There’s a deficient Franks challenge, and there was probable cause for both. The good faith exception also applies. United States v. Gary, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161872 (W.D. La. July 20, 2026).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on IA: Passenger’s flight from stop justified handcuffing driver, and the RS developed
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy against use of automated license plate readers or a traffic camera that caught plaintiff speeding. Hancock v. Duffey, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162153 (M.D. Ga. July 22, 2026).*
This one is on a narrow nondescript black pole with a solar panel 150′ from the front door of my local courthouse on the 100 block of Broadway, Little Rock, also across the street from City Hall:
I’m informed there are over 200 in my county of 370,000. I took this picture with an iPhone while waiting for the crossing light. The camera is about 12′ off the ground pointing at southbound traffic. It’s practically invisible to the uninformed. (Arkansas only has LPNs on the rear.)
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).*
"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.
