Even though the investigative detention went on for hours, it did not become an arrest. Cumani v. Queen, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 33139 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026).
Cell phone border search was valid. United States v. Newton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 33178 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2026).*
Prison strip search alleging it was only after Muslim prayer meetings was enough to move to discovery. Gohre v. Freitag, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247905 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 29, 2026).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing his search warrant was overbroad. United States v. Morrow, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247987 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2026).*
While the search lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion, it was valid based on inventory. State v. Fips, 2026-Ohio-4275 (8th Dist. Oct. 29, 2026).
No further exigency required for automobile exception search other than mobility. State v. Cabral, 2026 W. Va. LEXIS 454 (Oct. 29, 2026).*
“Securing property briefly to preserve evidence pending a warrant is reasonable when officers have probable cause, have good reason to fear the evidence will be lost, reasonably balance law enforcement needs against the individual’s interests, and restrain the property no longer than reasonably necessary to obtain the warrant. Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 331-33 (2001); see also Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 810 (1984). Each condition is satisfied here.” United States v. Starks, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247729 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 29, 2026).*
Posted inInventory, Seizure|Comments Off on OH8: Inventory saved search that lacked PC or RS
Creative argument but ultimately shortsighted: Is picking up a firearm to see the serial number a search under Arizona v. Hicks? Except it’s completely harmless here. State v. Pinkerman, 2026 W. Va. LEXIS 453 (Oct. 29, 2026)* [After all, there’s the “public safety exception,” whatever that is.]:
Under collective knowledge, the stopping officer doesn’t have to know the requesting officer’s justification. United States v. Taylor, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 33101 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2026).*
Whatever the initial reason for the stop, defendant fled on a highspeed chase to a dead end and surrendered. That justified the stop. United States v. Zamora, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 33124 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026).*
The officer lacked reasonable suspicion for this juvenile’s investigative detention. The police car pulled up next to him on the street, and the officers got out and questioned him about what was on him. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. In the Int. of K.C., 2026 PA Super 244 (Oct. 29, 2026).*
Posted inCollective knowledge, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA2: Collective knowledge doctrine doesn’t require stopping officer to know the reason if the one requesting it had it
The officer seeing a firearm in the car on a traffic stop justified extending the detention. United States v. Cuba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244700 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2026).
A police radio broadcast of a particular vehicle with a description of the driver was based on collective knowledge of reasonable suspicion. United States v. Keys, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247022 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2026).*
“The dog sniff did not prolong the stop because it took place while Vaughn was waiting for dispatch to respond with results from Burns’s data check.” United States v. Burns, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 33018 (8th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026).*
With probable cause, pretext for a stop doesn’t matter. Fictitious tags justified a patdown. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244649 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2026).
Defendant was convicted of driving on a suspended license resulting in death and leaving the scene. The police had information that he communicated with others about the accident, and that supported a warrant for his phone. People v. Brown, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 9133 (Sep. 15, 2026).*
“Appellee’s case is a long way from the scenario feared by the Supreme Court. Here, there is no sign that Officer Waters ‘acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation.’ Bertine, 479 U.S. at 372. Appellee was already under arrest for preexisting warrants, and his vehicle was left without anyone to drive it away. Thus, towing the vehicle to be impounded was the only realistic option. Thus, there was no pretext because Appellee’s vehicle was always going to be towed. An inventory search was inevitable.” Taylor v. State, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 987 (Oct. 29, 2026).*
The 18 year old defendant lived with his mother. When the police were at the house looking for consent to search, she had apparent authority to consent to a search of his room. “We do not hold that a parent can always consent to search their eighteen-year-old child’s room. This case is based on the facts presented to us, and courts should still look at the totality of the evidence, as we do here, to determine whether the person who consented had authority or apparent authority.” State v. Suarez, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 986 (Oct. 29, 2026).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing defendant was seized before his interview when it’s apparent he wasn’t. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246601 (D. Minn. Oct. 27, 2026).*
Without a factual dispute, there’s no need for a suppression hearing. United States v. Guo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246175 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2026).*
LATimes: Federal judge blocks ICE from making racially discriminatory stops in Southern California by Brittny Mejia (“A federal judge barred immigration agents in Southern California from stopping people simply because they are Latino or appear to be and are working class, finding evidence of an unwritten, ‘officially sanctioned’ policy of racial profiling. [¶] In her order granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong cited ‘a mountain of evidence’ provided by the plaintiffs, including body camera footage and text messages that captured immigration agents referring to Latinos using slurs such as ‘tonk’ and ‘wet.’”)
Posted inimmigration stops, Pretext|Comments Off on LATimes: Federal judge blocks ICE from making racially discriminatory stops in Southern California
The USMJ recommends that this fire scene search be suppressed for the government’s failure to provide a timeline of when the Fire Marshal entered after the fire was extinguished to show that it was justified. An explosive device was found. His statement is also suppressed because of his serious mental health issues. United States v. Sholar, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247052 (E.D. Okla. Oct. 16, 2026) [2 Search and Seizure § 43.27]. The government relied on Brigham City:
The officer seeing a firearm in the car on a traffic stop justified extending the detention. United States v. Cuba, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244700 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 26, 2026).
Taking fingerprints during a lawful arrest is not a Fourth Amendment claim. “The Court likewise finds that neither the Fifth nor Sixth Amendments prohibits the compulsory collection of May’s fingerprint exemplars. The taking of fingerprints is non-testimonial and therefore falls outside the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Sixth Amendment is also not implicated because the taking of fingerprints is not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal proceedings entitling a defendant to the presence of counsel.” United States v. May, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245530 (E.D. La. Oct. 27, 2026).*
The protective sweep here was justified, and that led to a valid plain view. United States v. Galloway, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245875 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2026).*
During a traffic stop, the driver and passenger could be ordered out of the car and their DLs checked. The passenger was thus properly arrested on an outstanding warrant. State v. Hurst, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 723 (Oct. 27, 2026).
The inventory here followed department policy and complied with the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Johnson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 32776 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2026).*
Defendant had a gun and tossed it into a sewer to avoid being in possession. His admission that he did that was admissible. It also justified his search incident that produced cash, drugs, ammo, and its holster. United States v. Blaylock, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245375 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2026).*
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on TN: Passenger’s DL could be checked during traffic stop
Posted inNexus|Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: A case dealing with the Sixth Circuit’s rebuttable presumption guns are usually kept at home; and the GFE swallows the rule
Carpenter and Chatrie did not completely vitiate the third-party doctrine. The third-party doctrine still applies to social media account records. United States v. Brooke, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245217 (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 2026).
There was reasonable suspicion defendant was armed justifying a frisk. Commonwealth v. Smith, 2026 PA Super 240 (Oct. 27, 2026).*
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality for a drug stop of defendant. United States v. Montelongo-Rosales, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244596 (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2026).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine|Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Carpenter and Chatrie did not completely vitiate the third-party doctrine; it applies to social media account records
This computer record search warrant was overbroad but not so bad the good faith exception shouldn’t apply. A lot of records had to be seized to be analyzed. United States v. Meadows, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244175 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 26, 2026).
“Nonetheless, our precedent clearly establishes that a reasonable officer could not arrest a person for a DUI under the facts identified by the District Court: Zebley encountered a person who was asleep in their car late at night, felt dizzy, parked reasonably close to the curb, had no red or glassy eyes, had no drugs on their person or in their car, passed six sobriety tests, and did not smell of alcohol or drugs.” Arrey v. Zebley, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 32497 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 2026).*
Defendant lost on a cell phone tower dump on good faith. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not adding a First Amendment claim to it. State v. Elias, 322 Neb. 671 (Oct. 23, 2026).*
The probable cause for this military search warrant was close and still existed, but exclusion would have no deterrent value. Mil. R. Evid. 311(a)(3) & 311(d)(5)(A). Moreover, omissions from the affidavit would have only strengthened the probable cause showing. United States v. Blevins, 2026 CCA LEXIS 467 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2026) (unpublished).*
The windshield crack went in front of the driver and was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Woeppel, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243429 (D. Mont. Oct. 23, 2026).*
“[W]e need not determine the precise moment of seizure in this case. Even if the encounter ripened into a seizure sometime before Harris saw the bulge, the seizure would have been supported by reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Ozomaro, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 32491 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2026).*
The Department of Labor’s subpoena duces tecum was reasonable in scope and within the agency’s authority. United States DOL v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243413 (D. Kan. Sep. 21, 2026):*
One who manages another’s social media account doesn’t have standing in it. United States v. Lewis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 31996 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026).
The state’s theory in response to the motion to suppress based on an arrest without probable cause is rejected. It could have argued other issues but elected not to, and it loses on its theory. State v. Walker, 2026-Ohio-4187 (1st Dist. Oct. 23, 2026).*
The officer had reasonable suspicion for a stop, even if somewhat mistaken on the facts (Heien). United States v. Woeppel, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243429 (D. Mont. Oct. 23, 2026).*
Defendant’s driving without a license was enough for a stop, tow, and inventory. The bodycam showed that there was an easily accessible hiding spot in the door requiring no tools. United States v. Banks, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243612 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2026).*
NYTimes: Trump’s ‘Smart Wall’ of A.I. Cameras Is Watching the Border, and More Than a Million People by Bora Erden & Nicholas Nehamas (with hi-res cameras that can look inside houses).
Posted inAI, Surveillance technology, Video surveillance|Comments Off on NYTimes: Trump’s ‘Smart Wall’ of A.I. Cameras Is Watching the Border, and More Than a Million People
The affidavit for warrant for a cell phone relies entirely on the general use of cell phones in the drug trade. There’s no more, and that’s not probable cause. Still, however, the good faith exception saves it. United States v. Darks, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243249 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2026).
The validity of defendant’s statement depends on the validity of the stop. The district court found the stop was with probable cause of a traffic violation, so it’s valid. United States v. Kendrick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 31995 (11th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026).*
Plaintiff was on notice of his search claim, at the latest when it was mentioned during his criminal trial, which was two years and one month before the suit was filed, so it’s barred by limitations. Kunkle v. Holcomb, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 32254 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 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.
