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).*
“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).*
"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.
