If you're starting law school this fall, you might be interested in my short essay, "How to Read a Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students." You can download it for free here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Dissent, per Sung, J.: but the rule on dissipated probable cause doesn't apply in the middle of a search.
CA9: Where cops obtained a warrant to search a computer for a video of a specific crime—& officers found the video, watched it, & concluded no crime had occurred—they had to stop searching b/c PC had dissipated. Other evidence found on computer is suppressed. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
Cops get tip that a deceased person was somewhere inside a 3-unit apartment building where drugs were suspected of being sold. Officers enter w/o warrant, find body in 2nd apartment, then go to 3rd apt and find drugs. RI SCT: Drugs suppressed, no emergency aid exception after the body was found.
Having previously ruled that forensic border searches require at least some kind of suspicion, CA4 holds that manual border searches—in which the agent looks through the device by hand, not using forensic software—does not require any suspicion. ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254...
Govt gets a warrant to search suspect's iPhone 6S for CSAM based on his t-mobile phone account being used for CSAM. Officers spot man, take his phone—but it's an iPhone 13. Officers search the 13 anyway, find CSAM. CA1: Suppressed, no good faith. ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/fi...
CA11 deepens the split—now 3 to 3—on whether the private search reconstruction doctrine allows the govt to open a computer file w/o a warrant after a private Internet provider scans it & finds a hash match w/known CSAM file. CA11, per Newsom, says yes. media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
Use of pole camera directed at commercial property was not a "search," CA7 rules, despite fence present: Camera wasn't revealing what a person couldn't see. (Note no consideration of possible relevance of the new Chatrie decision.) storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/07/...
Took @judgedillard.bsky.social longer than I expected, but he came through.
Man arrested for being a felon in possession of a gun. Officers apply for a warrant to search his cell phone for evidence of it. DDC: There's no probable cause to get a warrant here, & I'm ordering the phone returned to the defendant. (Harvey, MJ) drive.google.com/file/d/1Q_ig...
Judge Rushing, dissenting:The district court made a factual finding that the suspect could leave, and it's not clearly erroneous.
911 call in high crime area leads to officers checking out car. CA4 (2-1, per Judge Benjamin w/Thacker): Police cars were sufficiently interfering with exit from parking lot that suspect was seized. As there was not enough suspicion, evidence suppressed. govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...
State trooper pulls over semi after receiving tip that it's hauling drugs. CA7 (2-1): Drugs suppressed, as this is a pretextual use of the administrative inspection authority, which unlike routine traffic stops doesn't allow pretexts. media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opin...
Texas officer searches car in TX in compliance with TX law, seizes gun that passenger had used in a murder in New Mexico. NM charges passenger w/murder, wants to use gun. NM SCT: Gun suppressed, as the greater protections of NM Constitution apply to the gun seizure. nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en...
"So, is there anything wrong with the DOJ using the Grand Jury to subpoena these records from Fulton County? In this Court’s view, yes." —Per District Judge William Ray, N.D. Ga. (For those wondering, Judge Ray was appointed by Trump.) storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
If it seems crazy that Fourth Amendment doctrine would say you're not voluntarily disclosing your IP address when you use a peer to peer network that discloses your IP address, then you should read Chatrie, which makes the test whether the conduct is an "ordinary thing cell phone users do."
There's no 4th Amendment "search" when the govt uses the Freenet peer-to-peer network to identify IP addresses of those sharing particular files on it. (Surely right before Chatrie, but they should have analyzed if this is true after Chatrie, which is not cited.) ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/fi...
Another pickup from the estate sale I recently attended. It's probably the most common saved newspaper by that generation: reporting on JFK's assassination the day after, 11/23/63.
You don't hear so much about Judge Charles Wyzanski these days. A former clerk for both Hands, he served on the D.Mass from 1941 until his death in 1986. This book was his main collection of extra-judicial writings and speeches.
Breyer in Missouri v Seibert (2004), concurring, saying what he thought the controlling opinions truly meant, even though that’s not what they said.
An example that comes to mind is Scalia's dissent in Maryland v. King, which some lower courts have pointed to in order to justify a broader reading of the majority opinion.
Compare gow the government's brief in Chatrie described the process of opting in to Location History (left) versus how the Supreme Court's opinion described that process (right).
From a storytelling perspective, it's understandable: You want to persuade the reader by presenting the facts as super scary, and facts that cut the other way aren't helpful. (Relatedly, instead of saying most users never opted in, the opinion says 500 million users opted in.)
One part of Chatrie that is super important and that I entirely agree with: They finally killed off the mosaic theory.
In the CA7, at least, whether a traffic stop was needlessly extended under Rodriguez is considered a factual question reviewed for clear error. Here, no clear error that the stop was legitimately ongoing when the dogs arrived. media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opin...
Have to laugh, though, that the first tweet on your own profile is you mocking a particular commentator for running the Fitting of the Narratives.
Govt gets warrant for two weeks of records, but provider overproduces and sends extra records. Connecticut SCT: Whether or not the provider was a state actor here, 4A requires a 2nd warrant before the government can retain & use overproduced records. www.jud.ct.gov/external/sup...
After Chatrie, does Smith v. Maryland, that numbers dialed are not protected, apply to cell phones? The Court seems to treat "smartphones" as the relevant item for the rule of "ordinary" use, not the individual action like dialing numbers.