E.D.La.: RS def was armed in a NOLA firearms free zone

The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant was armed, but also in a firearm-free zone during Mardi Gras which was reasonably determined. United States v. Bryant, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62869 (E.D. La. Mar. 25, 2026).*

2255 petitioner’s guilty plea waived his claim the prosecutor knowingly used evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Graham, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62885 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2026).*

Defendant had the opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, so Stone bars relief. White v. Thornell, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62944 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2026).*

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded conversations with the confidential source who ratted him out to the police. United States v. Jensen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63078 (D.N.M. Mar. 25, 2026).*

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.La.: RS def was armed in a NOLA firearms free zone

N.D.Ind.: Police arriving during ongoing 911 call justified entry on exigency

Officers arrived at the house the subject of an open 911 call during the emergency, and that authorized entry. United States v. Bray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63142 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2026).*

The court can’t tell from the body cams whether the injury on plaintiff was intentional or accidental. That’s going to be a question for trial. Steinhoff v. Malovrh, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8627 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026).*

Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim on habeas is barred by Stone. Wilfred H. v. Frame, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62003 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 27, 2026).*

Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails on the merits of consent. Cain v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62028 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2026).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Police arriving during ongoing 911 call justified entry on exigency

CA9: 48-hour delay in getting a warrant for a mailed package wasn’t unreasonable

A 48 hour delay in getting a warrant for a mailed package wasn’t unreasonable. United States v. Garza, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8714 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026).

Petitioner’s bank records were obtained by search warrant. They are third party records he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in. United States v. Rembert, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8558 (3d Cir. Mar. 24, 2026).*

Police waiting two days to get a search warrant after lawfully seizing defendant’s cell phone wasn’t unreasonable. State v. White, 2026 Mo. App. LEXIS 207 (Mar. 24, 2026).*

Petitioner had his full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and didn’t put anything on. [That’s on him.] Allen v. Brantley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61226 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2026).*

Posted in Cell phones, Issue preclusion, Mail and packages, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on CA9: 48-hour delay in getting a warrant for a mailed package wasn’t unreasonable

W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

Defendant had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte. On the merits his Franks challenge fails: “Even assuming arguendo that any of the above challenged statements could be considered false or misleading, Defendants have put forth no credible evidence that Inspector Homer deliberately or recklessly misled the magistrate judge by misrepresenting the nature of the mailers.” United States v. Engler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62189 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2026).

“In assessing probable cause for a malicious-prosecution claim, we consider only the information that was presented to the magistrate judge, either orally or in writing. Butler, 85 F.3d at 1113. So we can’t justify a seizure by reference ‘to information in an officer’s investigative file or mind absent a record that he submitted the file to or explained his thought processes to the magistrate judge.’ Id. (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Accordingly, ‘we consider only (1) the information that was before the magistrate …, minus (2) any material misstatements that [Keeton] might have made, plus (3) any material information that she omitted.’ Id.” And here there was probable cause. Davis v. Distephano, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8607 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

D.S.D.: The fact a protective sweep came up empty doesn’t mean it wasn’t justified

“The court finds that the government has met its burden of demonstrating that the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement applies. Before the protective sweep, officers received reports that someone matching Mr. Day’s physical description and alias was threatening another individual with a gun—that is an articulable fact supporting the officers’ reasonable belief that weapons were present inside the apartment. Officers also anticipated “holding” Mr. Day’s apartment for an extended period, making them vulnerable to a possible attack if someone were inside the apartment. Hearing Tr. at 63. Further, Mr. Day took over 90 seconds to answer his door, during which time another individual could have hidden within the apartment. Hearing Tr. at 62. Finally, the BOLO from four days prior alleged Mr. Day committed a robbery with a female accomplice, which also gave police reason to fear another person might be inside Mr. Day’s apartment.” It doesn’t matter that nobody was found inside. United States v. Day, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61746 (D.S.D. Feb. 23, 2026).*

The stop was for a tinted covering over the license plate that made it hard to read. The question is not unreadability. The stop was reasonable. State v. Arnold, 2026-Ohio-998 (4th Dist. Mar. 19, 2026).*

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.S.D.: The fact a protective sweep came up empty doesn’t mean it wasn’t justified

NPR: Your data is everywhere. The government is buying it without a warrant

NPR: Your data is everywhere. The government is buying it without a warrant by Jude Joffe-Block:

Continue reading
Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on NPR: Your data is everywhere. The government is buying it without a warrant

N.D.W.Va.: Bare allegations of a Franks violation without a significant offer of proof is conjecture

Bare allegations of a Franks violation without a significant offer of proof is conjecture. Kokinda v. Foster, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60028 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2026).*

Exigent circumstances justified the seizure of defendant’s cell phone, not just plain view, and probable cause was shown for the warrant. This search was by consent, and it was on a consent form he signed and it’s on bodycam. United States v. Yener, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60641 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2026).*

The alleged lack of probable cause for petitioner’s arrest has nothing to do with the subsequent search warrant. United States v. Moss, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8471 (10th Cir. Mar. 23, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: Bare allegations of a Franks violation without a significant offer of proof is conjecture

E.D.Mo.: Ubiquity of cell phones here satisfied nexus without stating it

This is about a search warrant issued in an arson investigation and defendant’s claim of lack of nexus. The ubiquity of cell phones means that the officers did not even have to state that they knew defendant had one. United States v. Reed, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60744 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 27, 2026), adopted 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59531 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Defendant’s girlfriend did a private search of a flash drive she found which had child pornography on it. She took it to the police. They looked for a few minutes just to verify, and then they got a warrant for it. This did not appreciable exceed the private search [if at all]. State v. Schullo, 2026 Wisc. App. LEXIS 317 (Mar. 24, 2026).*

The use of a wrist lock for pain compliance to remove a protestor from the Vermont Capitol was not clearly established as excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. Zorn v. Linton, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1471 (Mar. 23, 2026)* (per curiam. 6-3), reversing Linton v. Zorn, 135 F.4th 19 (2d Cir. 2025).

Posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Private search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Ubiquity of cell phones here satisfied nexus without stating it

C.D.Cal.: Bivens not extended to ICE workplace arrest

Bivens will not be extended to an ICE workplace arrest, per Egbert. Hernandez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61367 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Immigration arrests | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Bivens not extended to ICE workplace arrest

D.N.M.: 4A question for appeal significant enough to require bail pending appeal

Defendant’s search and seizure question for appeal on the independent source doctrine is significant enough to grant him release pending appeal. United States v. Haack, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60440 (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2026).

The state’s justifications for reasonable suspicion all fail: “We are persuaded that Mr. Davis’s conduct was largely innocent: Mr. Davis was located in a high-crime area because he lived there, the lack of shell casings and Mr. Davis’s nonsuspicious conduct should have dispelled any belief that he was responsible for the sound of gunfire, and Mr. Davis did not ‘blade,’ in fact, his body, but rather, cooperated with law enforcement questioning. We note, also, in passing, that, while the officers were apprehending Mr. Davis, additional shots (obviously fired by unknown individuals) were heard in the area. No shell casings were ever recovered from the area where Mr. Davis was standing.” The trial court should have suppressed. Reversed. Davis v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 306 (Mar. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.N.M.: 4A question for appeal significant enough to require bail pending appeal

RI: Trial stipulation DNA on blanket was def’s obviates search claim

Defendant wasn’t prejudiced by defense counsel not moving to suppress DNA off a blanket found on a road when he’d stipulated to it being his DNA. [There’s also an obvious abandonment issue not even mentioned.] Tassone v. State, 2026 R.I. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 19, 2026).* (Defendant’s statement: “I stopped and threw the blanket and the shovel off the side of the road” where police found it. The shovel was used as a weapon with the victim on the blanket, and he apparently buried her still alive.)

“Morton’s counsel raised many of the same [suppression] arguments that Morton now contends he should have raised in the first place, and the circuit court rejected those arguments by denying the motion to suppress.” Then defendant pled guilty. No IAC. Morton v. Walters, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59554 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2026).*

2254 petitioner’s search claim was litigated in state court and is barred by Stone; Harris v. Dotson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59481 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2026); and one exhaustively litigated is Smith v. Clement, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59510 (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2026).

On nexus, the place searched was described as two miles from defendant’s house, and it was, in fact defendant’s property. United States v. Reed, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59531 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Nexus | Comments Off on RI: Trial stipulation DNA on blanket was def’s obviates search claim

D.N.D.: ALPR not a search

ALPR not a search. United States v. Lawrence, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56945 (D.N.D. Mar. 18, 2026).

Failure to show materiality for Franks requires the court to also consider the elements of the crime being investigated. United States v. Engler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59277 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2026).

“The fact that handcuffs were initially used for officer safety purposes upon execution of the search warrant, does not determine custody status at the time of a later interview if the handcuffs have been removed.” United States v. Roncone, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59298 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Burden of pleading, Custody, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.N.D.: ALPR not a search

D.Haw.: No constitutional right to an “adequate police investigation”

There is no constitutional right to an “adequate police investigation.” Hawkes v. Katayama, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59452 (D. Haw. Mar. 19, 2026):

Continue reading
Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on D.Haw.: No constitutional right to an “adequate police investigation”

Cal.4: Ordering def out of house to arrest at gunpoint on RS unreasonable

Arresting defendant in his house but from outside with guns drawn and ordering him out on only reasonable suspicion was unreasonable. Where the arrestee is controls, not the officers. People v. Perez, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 176 (4th Dist. Mar. 20, 2026).

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss a state RICO indictment on five grounds, one of which was an invalid search. That’s not a valid ground to dismiss an indictment. People v. Nalty, 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 356 (Mar. 12, 2026)* (unpublished).

Defendant only argues that the search was warrantless, but there was a warrant. He doesn’t argue lack of probable cause. United States v. Hill, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59509 (D. Neb. Mar. 19, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Waiver | Comments Off on Cal.4: Ordering def out of house to arrest at gunpoint on RS unreasonable

D.N.M.: Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but QI applies

Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but qualified immunity applies because the law isn’t clearly established. Dotson v. Acord, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57749 (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2026).

Plaintiff runs a wildlife rehab place, and state officer sought a warrant for a whitetail deer fawn. Getting to the premises, they saw other things that concerned them, so they returned to the magistrate and amended the affidavit but apparently not the warrant. No matter: the affidavit was present with the warrant and they are read together. Shook v. S.C. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57811 (D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2026).

Defendant had the burden of showing a lack of a strategic basis for not challenging the search. People v. Mcennis, 2026 NY Slip Op 01635 (4th Dept. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Curtilage, Ineffective assistance, Particularity, Qualified immunity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Climbing over a locked gate to do a knock-and-talk violated curtilage, but QI applies

DE: Lack of binding authority for 5A cell phone thumbprint claim means it’s denied

Trial counsel didn’t challenge the use of defendant’s thumbprint to access his cell phone, acknowledging case law against it being testimonial. “It does not appear that either this Court or the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue. Nor has Riley cited any authority for the proposition that obtaining a suspect’s fingerprint violates the Fifth Amendment. In the absence of binding authority supporting his claim, Riley has not established deficient performance or prejudice as to this claim.” The search was otherwise challenged below. Riley v. State, 2026 Del. LEXIS 120 (Mar. 19, 2026).

2255 petitioner’s claim only that the CI was fabricated isn’t enough for a Franks challenge. Whitlow v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59018 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 20, 2026).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an IP address information. United States v. Smajlovic, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59147 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on DE: Lack of binding authority for 5A cell phone thumbprint claim means it’s denied

Cal.6: Community caretaking function can’t apply just to keep unlicensed driver from driving

“In this appeal, we examine the application of the Fourth Amendment’s community caretaking doctrine to vehicle impoundment. We consider whether a police officer’s decision to impound a driver’s vehicle pursuant to the Vehicle Code solely to prevent further illegal [unlicensed] driving satisfies the community caretaking function. We decide that it does not.” People v. Perez, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 169 (6th Dist. Mar. 19, 2026).

Police were called to an AutoZone for a car that was sitting outside running for three hours with no one in it. Police arrived and opened the door, making a plain view. This was within the community caretaking function. State v. Kiser, 2026-Ohio-952 (2d Dist. Mar. 20, 2026).*

Defendant occasionally borrowed his mother’s car when she let him because his was broken down. When it was stopped, he wasn’t even in it. He had no standing to challenge the search. Beside, her consent would do. State v. Manzano-Legarda, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 20, 2026).*

Posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Standing | Comments Off on Cal.6: Community caretaking function can’t apply just to keep unlicensed driver from driving

DC: Officer’s unreasonable mistake of law did not make the stop reasonable under Heien

The officer’s unreasonable mistake of law on windshield tint (“can’t have tint at all” v. it can have some) did not make the stop reasonable under Heien. Griffin v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 95 (Mar. 19, 2026).

Defendant’s nolo plea to a drug charge where the search also led to federal child pornography charges wasn’t issue preclusion in federal court, followed CA2 and CA10. United States v. Vorse, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57442 (D. Neb. Mar. 19, 2026).*

Officers knew and could see defendant fled into a house, and they could follow to arrest him. Versey v. Ebert, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57555 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 19, 2026).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on DC: Officer’s unreasonable mistake of law did not make the stop reasonable under Heien

MD: Waiting 20 days to get cell phone SW after seizure was reasonable here

Police seized defendant’s cell phone and sought to have it examined. It went into the queue at the forensic unit, and, when it was ready to be searched, they then sought a warrant. They waited because they believed there was only a 10-day window after the warrant issued. The delay was reasonable given the explanation. Gambino v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 287 (Mar. 17, 2026).

A label-less distinctive promethazine bottle in plain view was at least reasonable suspicion. Here, however, coupled with defendant’s known propensity for drugs and violence, it was probable cause. People v. Cummings, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 2274 (Mar. 18, 2026)* (unpublished).

Defense counsel isn’t ineffective for not anticipating changes in the law and making motions to suppress that were foreclosed at the time. Williams v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 288 (Mar. 17, 2026)* (unpublished).

Posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution | Comments Off on MD: Waiting 20 days to get cell phone SW after seizure was reasonable here

Treatise 25% off through 3/22

go here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Treatise 25% off through 3/22