Vanguard: SF Court Dismisses Felony Charges after Judge Finds Racial Bias Tainted SFPD Stop and Arrest

Vangard: SF Court Dismisses Felony Charges after Judge Finds Racial Bias Tainted SFPD Stop and Arrest by David M. Greenwald (“A San Francisco Superior Court judge has dismissed all felony drug charges against Kenneth McCurry after finding that two San Francisco police officers acted with implicit racial bias during the stop, use of force and arrest, violating California’s Racial Justice Act. Judge Patrick Thompson dismissed all three felony drug charges against McCurry on May 8 after concluding that the officers’ conduct at multiple decision points was tainted by implicit racial bias, according to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office.”)

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Pretext | Comments Off on Vanguard: SF Court Dismisses Felony Charges after Judge Finds Racial Bias Tainted SFPD Stop and Arrest

OH7: Magistrate signing SW for something outside of territorial jurisdiction not a 4A violation

A municipal court judge issuing a search warrant for something outside his or her territorial jurisdiction is a nonfundamental error that does not require suppression of the evidence. State v. Mele, 2026-Ohio-2604, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2537 (7th Dist. July 2, 2026).

Trash pulls from the containers where the driveway met the street were reasonable, despite the curtilage argument. There, not so much curtilage. There was probable cause for the warrant. United States v. Savage, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153234 (W.D. Pa. July 10, 2026).*

“Gray argues that probable cause did not exist to search his apartment because the warrant’s supporting affidavit failed to demonstrate a sufficient link between illicit drug activity and the premises. Yet even if we assume that the affidavit lacked probable cause, the good-faith exception applies.” [It did show probable cause.] United States v. Gray, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20290 (6th Cir. July 9, 2026).*

Posted in Curtilage, Good faith exception, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on OH7: Magistrate signing SW for something outside of territorial jurisdiction not a 4A violation

OH2: Stop outside the officer’s jurisdiction doesn’t violate 4A

A traffic stop outside the officer’s jurisdiction doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Sexton, 2026-Ohio-2636, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 2551 (2d Dist. July 10, 2026).

A habeas petitioner has no right to discovery of search warrant affidavits. Moreover, he does nothing to explain a rationale for getting them because there was no Fourth Amendment claim made before, and the time for filing one has long passed. United States v. Fuller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151657 n.1 (S.D. Miss. July 9, 2026).*

An officer off duty running a marathon saw defendant pull a gun on another person in a car. She shouted “gun” and hid. A nearby officer in uniform approached. Defendant fled from the car, leaving the gun. The search of the car was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19984 (6th Cir. July 7, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Burden of pleading, Reasonableness | Comments Off on OH2: Stop outside the officer’s jurisdiction doesn’t violate 4A

RawStory Opinion: Trump just declared these parts of America are outside the Constitution (within 100 miles of any border)

RawStory Opinion: Trump just declared these parts of America are outside the Constitution by Thom Hartmann:

Continue reading
Posted in Immigration checkpoints | Comments Off on RawStory Opinion: Trump just declared these parts of America are outside the Constitution (within 100 miles of any border)

CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

A search warrant for an iPhone 6S did not authorize a search of an iPhone 13 with the same phone number. Also, the good faith exception does not apply. Alleged exigency doesn’t save this search. United States v. González-Arocho, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20100 (1st Cir. July 9, 2026).

A citizen’s tip alone wouldn’t likely be probable cause. But, there’s more: “The citizen’s tip and marijuana residue, alone, provided a substantial basis for probable cause.” “Together with the unfired ammunition in the glove, the torn-off piece of a ziplock baggie (evidence of drug trafficking), the gang-related activity in the area, and Baling’s and Dilang’s felon status, the issuing judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause.” United States v. Dat, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19999 (8th Cir. July 9, 2026).*

Defendant can’t invoke Texas’s art. 38.23 exclusionary rule for an alleged illegal act before the alleged crime even occurred. Hram v. State, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 6368 (Tex. App. – Amarillo July 8, 2026).*

Posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA1: SW for iPhone 6S didn’t permit search of iPhone 13 despite same phone number

CA7: It wasn’t a 4A violation to place a pole camera to look over def’s fence he built knowing he was under surveillance

Defendant knew he was under surveillance by police, so he installed a wooden privacy fence around his business property. So, police put a pole camera so they could look over the fence. The pole camera didn’t need a warrant. United States v. Kendrick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20108 (7th Cir. July 9, 2026).

There was a substantial basis for defendant’s search warrant for fentanyl distribution from defendant’s home that led to overdose deaths. The trial court’s suppression order is reversed, so the good faith exception doesn’t even need to be considered. State v. Gardner, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 382 (July 10, 2026).*

The government fails to show that defendant’s backpack was subject to a warrantless search. It’s not a valid search incident: “ In contrast, here, the video evidence shows that Ranney had already been arrested and taken inside prior to the search, Ranney’s backpack was not next to him during the search, the initial search lasted several minutes, and the contents of the backpack were left on a table for almost two hours after the search.” As to inventory, this search served no valid administrative goals. The exclusionary rule applies. “But here, there was no warrant. Therefore, the good faith exception … [is] inapplicable.” United States v. Ranney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151177 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2026).*

Posted in Inventory, Pole cameras, Probable cause, Search incident | Comments Off on CA7: It wasn’t a 4A violation to place a pole camera to look over def’s fence he built knowing he was under surveillance

NM: Conflict of laws: NM exclusionary rule applies to TX search

Conflict of laws: “The New Mexico exclusionary rule is grounded in effectuating the constitutional rights of individuals and is therefore applicable where out-of-state evidence is introduced in a New Mexico court.” Here, it was a search in Texas that resulted in a murder charge in New Mexico. State v. Causey, 2026 N.M. LEXIS 124 (July 8, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on NM: Conflict of laws: NM exclusionary rule applies to TX search

D.N.M.: Obtaining def’s juvenile records by subpoena is not a “search”; no REP

The government’s subpoena for defendant’s juvenile case records is granted. The government can show relevance and admissibility at trial. Defendant focuses on his Fourth Amendment claim which is rejected. No case says there is a reasonable expectation of privacy against disclosure in juvenile records. Therefore, disclosure is not a “search.” United States v. Silva, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149439 (D.N.M. July 7, 2026).

The record supports the trial court’s finding there was no exigency for dispensing with a warrant. It’s not the appellate court’s job to reweigh the evidence. State v. Ford, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 5289 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2026).*

Defendant’s stop was for speeding both on the highway and in a construction zone. Upon smelling marijuana, it was not unreasonable for the officer to open the car door. State v. Jordan, 2026-Ohio-2625 (4th Dist. July 1, 2026).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Obtaining def’s juvenile records by subpoena is not a “search”; no REP

Sahan Journal: Minneapolis police drone debate draws packed crowds concerned about privacy

Sahan Journal: Minneapolis police drone debate draws packed crowds concerned about privacy by Mohamed Ibrahim (“Dozens of community members flooded Minneapolis City Hall Wednesday to express concerns about a proposed drone program for Minneapolis police. Nearly 50 people signed up to speak at the City Council’s public health, safety and equity committee meeting. Residents filled all of the seats in the council chambers reserved for the public, and an overflow room next door. ‘We just spent months enduring a brutal winter of military-equipped federal occupation and terrorization, and on the heels of that, you wish to provide military-grade drone tech to the cops in our already over-surveilled neighborhoods?’ said north Minneapolis resident Will Reely, referring to federal immigration enforcement during Operation Metro Surge. ‘You can’t be serious.’ Speakers said they don’t trust how the police would use drones, and are concerned the technology could be used as surveillance and lead to invasion of privacy.”)

Posted in Drones | Comments Off on Sahan Journal: Minneapolis police drone debate draws packed crowds concerned about privacy

CA11: Google computer’s CSAM hash value search and match was private search, noting circuit split

A Google computer’s hash value match of a file passing through Google to a CSAM image then forwarded on to NCMEC was a private search. The court agrees with the Fifth and Sixth Circuits holding that the private search doctrine applies, and noting: “The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held, to the contrary, that a hash-value match cannot constitute a valid private search.” United States v. Brillhart, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20138 (11th Cir. July 9, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Private search | Comments Off on CA11: Google computer’s CSAM hash value search and match was private search, noting circuit split

USA Today: Five GA cops used Flock cameras for personal searches, GBI says

USA Today: Five GA cops used Flock cameras for personal searches, GBI says by Irene Wright (“Five police officers have been accused of using Flock license plate camera technology in South Georgia to make personal searches, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The officers, formerly with the Albany Police Department, were charged with misuse of license plate data and violation of oath of office in a July 6 statement from the bureau. Tytianna Davis, 27, faces six counts, Jade Jackson, 32, faces three counts, Nicholas Richardson, 30, faces 12 counts, Brittney Smith, 23, faces two counts, and Issac Whitus, 24, faces three counts.”)

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on USA Today: Five GA cops used Flock cameras for personal searches, GBI says

CA7: Administrative inspection stop of truck without RS was pretext for drug search

Defendant showed that the administrative stop and inspection of this semi-truck was pretextual, without reasonable suspicion for the stop, and not in furtherance of the administrative program for truck inspections. Under Burger (its n.27), pretext can be an issue. United States v. Martinez, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19808 (7th Cir. July 7, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Administrative search, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA7: Administrative inspection stop of truck without RS was pretext for drug search

LA5: Nervousness and avoiding getting on airplane to LAX (a source city) was RS

DEA and State DTF officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant departing the NOLA airport for LAX (a source city) when he saw them as they looked all nervous and then walked away from boarding the airplane. State v. Wells, 2026 La. App. LEXIS 1347 (La. App. 5 Cir July 7, 2026).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a Franks motion when defendant offers nothing to show it would have succeeded. Gilmore v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147995 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2026).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a digital search warrant that would not have succeeded. Smith v. State, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 427 (July 6, 2026).*

Plaintiff doesn’t show that the use of force here violated any clearly established law. Estate of Dismang v. Reed, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19614 (10th Cir. July 6, 2026).*

Posted in Airport searches, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on LA5: Nervousness and avoiding getting on airplane to LAX (a source city) was RS

D.D.C.: A cell phone SW without PC in a felon in possession case is a general warrant because of its intrusiveness

Cell phone warrant for felon in possession case is quashed. No probable cause or nexus to the crime. Just because someone owns a cell phone doesn’t mean the government gets to search it. It is effectively a general warrant. United States v. Harris (In re Search of A Black Cellphone Currently Stored at the Metro. Police Department’s Evidence Control Branch in Wash. D.C. Under Rule 41), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149838 (D.D.C. July 6, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Cell phones, General warrant, Nexus, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.D.C.: A cell phone SW without PC in a felon in possession case is a general warrant because of its intrusiveness

N.D.Ga.: 2020 election materials GJ subpoena quashed as burdensome

The grand jury subpoena for identifying details and contact information of every person who worked on the Fulton County 2020 general election is quashed. It’s apparent this is for an improper purpose, it’s way overbroad and intrusive (see F.R.Crim.P. 17 where subpoenas can be quashed if unreasonable and oppressive), and the five-year statute of limitations clearly has run, at the earliest, election certification day 2020. The government’s need for the information is low because it can’t extend the statute of limitations. The subpoena puts a high burden on the County, and it will deter people from every wanting to work elections in the future. Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections v. United States, 1:26-cv-02777-WMR (N.D. Ga. July 7, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: 2020 election materials GJ subpoena quashed as burdensome

SCOTUSBlog: Justice Jackson reignites the interpretation wars, adding to textualism’s emerging cracks

SCOTUSBlog: Justice Jackson reignites the interpretation wars, adding to textualism’s emerging cracks by Abbe Gluck:

Continue reading
Posted in SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUSBlog: Justice Jackson reignites the interpretation wars, adding to textualism’s emerging cracks

The Guardian: AI surveillance is being supercharged – and it will chill social progress

The Guardian: AI surveillance is being supercharged – and it will chill social progress by Bruce Schneier and Jon Penney (“These systems will soon be able to track our public and private lives. But we can make the policy choices to reject it.”)

Posted in AI, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on The Guardian: AI surveillance is being supercharged – and it will chill social progress

CA7: Scrolling through def’s cell phone was a reasonable border search

Scrolling through defendant’s cell phone was a reasonable border search. United States v. Eta, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 19568 (7th Cir. July 6, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in Border search, Cell phones | Comments Off on CA7: Scrolling through def’s cell phone was a reasonable border search

E.D.Ark.: Bivens not extended to knock-and-announce violation and shooting; FTCA applies instead

Bivens won’t be extended to an alleged knock-and-announce violation and a police shooting of the homeowner. SCOTUS should just go ahead and abandon Bivens. It proceeds as an FTCA case. Malinowski v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148126 (E.D. Ark. July 6, 2026).

An Ohio municipal court judge issuing a warrant for cell phone records in New Jersey was not a fundamental error and was subject to the good faith exception. State v. Tisdale, 2026-Ohio-2567 (7th Dist. July 1, 2026).*

Probable cause and nexus were shown for defendant’s cell phone in a drug trafficking conspiracy based on messages and calls between co-conspirators. United States v. Harris, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146630 (E.D. Mo. June 1, 2026).*

Posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Nexus, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: Bivens not extended to knock-and-announce violation and shooting; FTCA applies instead

D.Mont.: This ping warrant was based on PC and was not governed by Chatrie

This cell phone ping warrant was based on a showing of probable cause. It was a one-time deal and didn’t involve the factors of Chatrie and geofence warrants. United States v. Kunz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148872 (D. Mont. July 6, 2026).

Defendant’s stop was justified by a traffic offense, and he contradicted what officers had just observed, and then he attempted to flee. There was justification for extending the stop. Officers had his cell phones in hand when he fled. Their seizure was reasonable. United States v. Berry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148778 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2026).*

There was reasonable suspicion to continue the stop 24 minutes to wait for the drug dog which alerted. United States v. Carroll, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148675 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2026).*

Posted in Cell phones, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on D.Mont.: This ping warrant was based on PC and was not governed by Chatrie