Officers had a court order under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 8100 for taking plaintiff’s guns because of a mental health hold. They came to his house but he was gone. They talked to him through his Ring doorbell. His therapist made the call that started it. They got the guns from him. Case over the guns dismissed. Hill v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31135 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2026).*
“The warrant limits the digital search to electronic devices and files ‘constituting evidence of sexual exploitation of children,’ not a full forensic search of every device and file as Mr. Quinlan asserts. Although the warrant lacks a temporal limitation, the constituting evidence of language distinguishes this warrant from the Galpin warrant found to lack particularity for failure to ‘provid[e] the forensic examiner with any guidance or limitations as to what kinds of files might be relevant.’ … Although the language of the warrant issued here could have been drafted more artfully, the court finds the limiting language sufficiently connects the items to be seized to the crime of sexual exploitation of children.” United States v. Quinlan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30725 (D. Vt. Feb. 13, 2026).*
Reason: Was It a Coincidental Traffic Stop or AI-Powered Surveillance? by Mattha Busby (“Seth Ferranti was driving his Ford pickup on a southeastern Nebraska stretch of the interstate in November 2024 when law enforcement pulled him over, claiming that he had wobbled onto the hard shoulder. As the Seward County sheriff’s deputies questioned Ferranti, a filmmaker who had spent 21 years in prison for distributing LSD, they allegedly smelled cannabis. Declaring this probable cause for a search, they searched the vehicle and discovered more than 400 pounds of marijuana. But were those the actual reasons for the stop and search? When Ferranti went on trial, his attorneys presented a license plate reader report produced by the security communications company Motorola Solutions. It revealed Ferranti had been consistently monitored prior to his arrest, including by the local sheriff on the day he was apprehended.”)
Posted inAI|Comments Off on Reason: Was It a Coincidental Traffic Stop or AI-Powered Surveillance?
NPR: Some cities are ditching license plate readers over immigration surveillance concerns by Jude Joffe-Block (“The use of automatic license plate readers has exploded across the country in recent years. The cameras on roads and freeways that take images of the back of passing cars are popular with police for solving crimes. But as President Trump’s immigration enforcement crackdown has escalated in recent months, residents of various American cities are urging local leaders to stop using these cameras, citing fears of mass surveillance and concerns that local data could be aiding a federal deportation dragnet. Many of the grassroots campaigns have targeted cameras made by Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that has contracts with more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies across the country. Some cities have grappled with the issue and decided to keep their cameras due to public safety, but in a number of places, the pressure has worked. The liberal college towns of Flagstaff, Ariz., Cambridge, Mass., Eugene, Ore. and Santa Cruz, Calif., are among a list of at least 30 localities that have either deactivated their Flock cameras or canceled their contracts since the beginning of 2025 – with much of the activity happening in just the last three months.”)
Posted inAutomatic license plate readers|Comments Off on NPR: Some cities are ditching license plate readers over immigration surveillance concerns
It’s not constitutionally required to show that a cell phone was actually used in a crime for probable cause to search it. It’s enough that it likely could have. “A law enforcement-affiant’s personal expertise combined with attestation to a defendant’s membership in a criminal enterprise and ‘familiar[ity] with the manner in which gang members and individuals engaged in violent crime use cell phones in connection with such activity’ can establish probable cause for a cellphone warrant.” quoting United States v. Silva, 146 F.4th 183, 186, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2025). United States v. Rodriguez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31991 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026).
When an officer fires his gun, any person hit is “seized.” Kilnapp v. City of Cleveland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4817 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026).
The record is undeveloped to make a determination whether the exclusionary rule should be applied. Remanded to the trial court for further hearings. People v. Conley, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 1330 (Feb. 9, 2026) (unpublished).*
Defendant pulled his car into a convenient driveway for his stop, but he had no standing in the curtilage because it wasn’t his place. The car he had standing in, but this was a plain view. State v. Gunn, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 75 (Crim. App. Feb. 18, 2026).
The stop for a traffic offense ripened into reasonable suspicion for further investigation as the officer followed up a tip. State v. Williams, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 92 (Feb. 18, 2026).*
“Based on these principles and the totality of the circumstances, we discern no error in the district court’s determination that the officers here had reasonable suspicion to support Jenkins’s seizure. The officers received their tip from an individual who made his report in person and provided the officers with all of his personal identifying information. The basis of informant’s knowledge–his presence with Jenkins throughout the day, knowledge of the firearm’s location, and awareness of the corroborating timing of his suspicions-supported his tip’s reliability. Finally, the officers corroborated several aspects of the tip before detaining Jenkins.” United States v. Jenkins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4795 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026).*
The inherent dangers in a traffic stop justified the officer doing a protective sweep to seize a firearm on the seat in plain view, despite lack of any sense that defendant was going to use it. Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport, 2026 Pa. LEXIS 266 (Feb. 18, 2026), affirming Commonwealth v. Hawkins-Davenport, 319 A.3d 537 (Pa. Super. 2024):
A motion to suppress once made and denied doesn’t have to be renewed during the proof. Trial counsel’s statement that the ruling was correct didn’t bind appellate counsel to raise it, but it loses on the merits anyway. Cobb v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 109 (Feb. 18, 2026).
Plaintiff pled guilty to his offense and then tried a § 1983 case. The court can’t say that it is conclusively barred by Heck at this point. See Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306 (1983). Brewster v. Virginia, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31703 (W.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2026).*
By collective knowledge, the officers had probable cause to make a warrantless arrest. United States v. Estrada, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31528 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2026).*
Defendant’s lane change that affected other cars was sufficient for a stop. Claypoole v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 107 (Feb. 18, 2026).*
“This case arises from an officer shooting the target of a search warrant. Detective Thomas Strode obtained a warrant to search Don Clark’s residence for illegal guns and drugs. As officers entered without knocking, Clark shot at the officers but missed. Officer Nicholas Manasco shot and killed Clark. Clark’s family sued Strode, Manasco, and the City of St. Louis, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. The officers and the City moved for summary judgment. None of the evidence Clark’s family submitted is sufficient to establish that Strode’s warrant lacked probable cause (and that he knew or should have known that), nor that a reasonable officer in Manasco’s position would have been required not to use deadly force. The Court grants the motion for summary judgment.” Clark v. City of St. Louis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30695 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2026).*
This was a search warrant for indicia of defendant’s residence. State v. Uranga, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 13, 2026) (§ 56.18 n.2).
Defendant was tried in 2012 and if his counsel had made a motion to suppress cell phone data before Carpenter in 2018, he would have lost because the state courts held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy back then. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel in 2012. Bradford v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 52 (Feb. 17, 2026).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. She complained of three omissions, but probable cause was shown anyway. Also, “Ultimately, it was appropriate for the magistrate to consider the information provided by unnamed DHHS workers when determining whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant.” People v. White, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 1306 (Feb. 13, 2026).*
Cleveland’s city elevator inspector got permission from the maintenance persons at three apartment buildings in Cleveland to conduct regular inspections. This was all by consent. The court thus does not have to decide whether the inspections were also valid as a part of a regulatory scheme. City of Cleveland v. Shaker Heights Apartments Owner LLC, 2026-Ohio-449 (8th Dist. Feb. 12, 2026).*
Officers got a tip that defendant was a drug dealer. They set up surveillance. She didn’t leave the house much at all and she had two cars, one with an out of state plate, and surveillance cameras. That suggested to them she was a drug dealer. Then they did a trash pull finding marijuana and used paraphernalia. That was probable cause for a warrant. State v. Revuelta, 2026 UT App 21 (Feb. 12, 2026).*
Defendant had fled police before. This time, they followed until he stopped and got out of the car, and they approached the passenger who denied knowing him. This involved a reasonable plain view and protective sweep of the car. Jones v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 1259 (Fla. 6th DCA Feb. 13, 2026).*
The stop was justified, but the stop was unreasonably extended for the drug dog that didn’t alert. Then the officers muted their microphones for 40 seconds before a search of defendant’s person. “The officers’ choice to spend several minutes on off-microphone discussions after completing all traffic-related tasks embodies the type of ‘bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation’ that must be scrutinized under Rodriguez.” United States v. Gray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30918 (D. Conn. Feb. 15, 2026).
The search here was supported by plain view and smell of alcohol. Widgeon v. Commonwealth, 2026 Va. App. LEXIS 103 (Feb. 17, 2026).*
Under state law, an unmade motion to suppress would have to clearly have succeeded to be ineffective assistance of counsel for not making it. Here, it would have failed on the merits because there was nexus. Chapple v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 55 (Feb. 17, 2026).*
So, was defendant’s jerking movement in his car at 8 am him “jamming” or “grooving” to music or under the influence of a stimulant drug? Not enough here for reasonable suspicion. This is but a hunch. Wilson v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 51 (Feb. 16, 2026)*:
The premises had been subjected to a protective sweep seeing firearms, locked up, and a search warrant was sought. Officers heard a noise inside and came in and found defendant and he’d apparently moved one of the guns. The initial entry for the protective sweep was justified by the circumstances. The reentry for defendant’s moving around was, too. United States v. Pope, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4625 (3d Cir. Feb. 17, 2026).
Driving with one low beam light out was reasonable suspicion for a stop. Cairo v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 185 (Feb. 13, 2026) (unpublished).*
This search warrant was executed to establish whether an uncommunicative registered sex offender lived there. State v. Uranga, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 13, 2026).*
CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant by Tierney Sneed (“Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, accused the Justice Department of making “serious” omissions in the application the FBI filed to obtain a search warrant for 2020 election ballots last month. The local officials, who are seeking the return of the election materials, wrote in a court filing Tuesday that ‘instead of alleging probable cause to believe a crime has been committed,’ the FBI’s application ‘does nothing more than describe the types of human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election—without any intentional wrongdoing whatsoever.’”)
Posted inFranks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property|Comments Off on CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant
The search of defendant’s car was unreasonable under the automobile exception because there was no probable cause to believe drugs or other evidence would be found there. Also, the inventory was invalid. United States v. Lujan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30175 (D.N.M. Feb. 13, 2026).*
“Keegan’s Fourth Amendment claim challenging the implementation of BOP’s policy under which his F[irst] S[tep] A[ct] time credits were allegedly miscalculated unquestionably presents a new Bivens context.” Keegan v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30453 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2026).*
There was justification for plaintiff’s arrest for walking in the street instead of on a “usable sidewalk” such that cars had to dodge him. This was during a Breonna Taylor police shooting protest. Schilling v. Doherty, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4471 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).*
Plaintiff was held for 10 months then he was found not guilty. He can’t sue the court over that. Neal v. Alleghany Cty. Cir. Ct., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30298 (W.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2026).*
The warrant for CSAM was specific enough and didn’t permitt and unlimited search of the devices. “Although the language of the warrant issued here could have been drafted more artfully, the court finds the limiting language sufficiently connects the items to be seized to the crime of sexual exploitation of children. See United States v. Tompkins, 118 F.4th 280, 287 (2d Cir. 2024) (citation modified) (‘We have also noted that the Fourth Amendment does not require that search warrants include a perfect description of the data to be searched and seized, including search warrants for digital data.’).” United States v. Quinlan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30725 (D. Vt. Feb. 13, 2026). In addition, defendant was free to move about his house during execution of a CSAM warrant, so he was not in custody when they talked to him. United States v. Quinlan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30724 (D. Vt. Feb. 13, 2026).*
The affidavit for search warrant at least fairly suggested that defendant stored drug proceeds at his place, and that satisfied nexus. United States v. Walker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30155 (M.D. La. Feb. 13, 2026).*
The affidavit for warrant showed enough for nexus, and the good faith exception applied. United States v. Walker, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30155 (M.D. La. Feb. 13, 2026).*
Posted inNexus, Particularity|Comments Off on D.Vt.: SW for CP was specific enough to prevent a general search of devices
2254 petitioner loses on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim, and the court can opt to do that or apply Stone and not decide it. Evans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29920 n.2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2026).
The omissions from the affidavit were neither reckless, intention, nor material to probable cause. When the issue is omissions, the effective burden on the movant is higher. United States v. Hilton, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29472 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2026).*
Plaintiffs were asleep in their car in a mall parking lot when police encountered them. An open whiskey bottle in the back seat justified extending this stop, long enough for a drug dog. Wogan v. Rose, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4348 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026).*
The dashcam video shows plaintiff rolling through a stop sign, so his stop was justified. Then reasonable suspicion developed to extend the stop. Larriett v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 4406 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Issue preclusion|Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: In a 2254, court can decide petitioner loses on merits or deny relief on Stone, as it chooses
Really low helicopter flyover [“lower than a cellphone tower”] of defendant’s property seeing a marijuana grow violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. [What if it was a drone and not a helicopter? A pole camera? Private surveillance satellite?] State v. Foreman, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 67 (Feb. 12, 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]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!” ---Pepé Le Pew
"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.
