-
483 F.3d 404 Fifth Circuit April 3, 2007 No. 05-41684
During that conversation, Shelton instructed Gore that he could not search Freeman’s house without a warrant.
Specifically, the court held that because the deputies had no right to search Freeman’s house, they likewise could not arrest or threaten to arrest Freeman for refusing to permit them to search the house without a warrant.
Here, at the time of Freeman’s arrest, the deputies knew that Freeman would not consent to a search of her home without a warrant; that they did not have a warrant to search Freeman’s home; and that Freeman’s son Kevin resided not
-
630 F.3d 397 Fifth Circuit January 6, 2011 No. 09-10133
Oliver also consented to a search of his car, but he declined to consent to a search of his home.
of the laptop computer before it obtained a search warrant.
When confronted with situations where, as here, the police search items found within a residence after a private search has already been conducted, a defendant may retain a reasonable expectation of privacy following the private search
-
456 F.3d 519 Fifth Circuit July 18, 2006 No. 05-10486
At a bench conference after jury selection and prior to presenting the indictment to the jury, Fields made an oral motion to suppress evidence because he contended that the second search of the Impala, conducted without a warrant,
The search incident to an arrest exception to the warrant requirement “allows police to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful custodial arrest of both ‘occupants’ and ‘recent occupants’ ” of the vehicle
Rather, Fields had crashed the car into the side of the building. The Fourth Amendment concerns that arise when the police search a car that is parked in the driveway of a home, without a warrant, are not present here.
-
814 F.3d 721 Fifth Circuit February 24, 2016 No. 14-11134
Smith, Pipes, Adams, and Collins each testified that they personally yelled some variation of “police” and “search warrant.”
[or] ‘search warrant,’ but did not hear them yell anything.
While the police claimed they yelled “police, search warrant,” the only statement heard by Camp as he sat at a desk in an adjoining office was “get your hands up.” Camp never heard anyone yell “police, search warrant.”
-
291 F.3d 325 Fifth Circuit May 9, 2002 No. 01-20189
By the initial plan Baxter was to meet Rogelio at a local fast-food establishment, setting up a search of his car. It didn’t work — Rogelio did not appear.
After waiting until 1:30 a.m. on July 12, the officers returned to the apartment and, without obtaining a search warrant, had Baxter knock on the door.
All of this assumes that policymakers may not rely on the representations of police officers as to the existence of an exception to the warrant requirement. 19 These offense reports are insufficient to establish actual knowledge
-
739 F.3d 241 Fifth Circuit January 7, 2014 No. 12-11279
, inter alia, whether the police officer asked Guzman for consent to search his car.
officer conducts an unlawful search, the fruits of that search, including incriminating statements, may be inadmissible.
of a home, without a warrant, are not present.”
-
541 F.3d 562 Fifth Circuit August 22, 2008 No. 07-20200
Consent to Search “A search may be conducted without either probable cause or a warrant if it is conducted pursuant to consent.” United States v. Richard, 994 F.2d 244, 250 (5th Cir.1993).
Thus, Moreman’s search of the phones without a warrant, without probable cause, and absent consent violated the Fourth Amendment. D.
See Finley, 477 F.3d at 260 (holding that a police officer may conduct a warrantless search of a cell phone on a person if the search is incident to arrest).
-
486 F.3d 855 Fifth Circuit May 15, 2007 No. 05-20330
Police officers stopped the vehicle a few blocks away, placed the defendant in the back of a police car, and then asked his girlfriend for consent to search her home, which she gave.
The day after receiving the tip, the police did not seek a warrant. Rather, six officers set up surveillance outside the residence. Three or four hours later, a car drove away from the residence.
No search warrant was obtained, you had all of that time period, and instead this pretextual stop without an actual traffic violation was the manner used to get him into what was effectively custody, (emphasis added).
-
713 F.3d 248 Fifth Circuit April 3, 2013 No. 12-50044
The intentional tort alleged by Davila occurred well after the search of his car by Border Patrol agents.
Rather, they contend that an agent issued the BOLO without first researching whether Tocho was still associated with the car, and assert that Tocho had not been associated with the car for several months.
The plaintiffs claimed that Unknown CBP Agents were negligent in issuing a BOLO on Davila’s car without first conducting a proper review of CBP records to ascertain whether Tocho was still associated with the car.
-
290 F.3d 223 Fifth Circuit April 18, 2002 Nos. 00-10821, 01-11207
” of a prior illegal search: (1) that the police would still have sought a warrant in the absence of the illegal search; and (2) that the warrant would still have been issued (i.e., that there would still have been probable cause to
Agent Nuckles’[s] decision to seek the search warrants in this case was unaffected by the fact that the police, including himself, may have looked at more disks than did the private parties. 8.
This is not to say that discussion of prior illegal search activity in a warrant application is irrelevant in assessing whether the police would have sought a warrant in the absence of a prior illegal search.
-
903 F.3d 534 Fifth Circuit September 13, 2018 Nos. 16-11234; C/w 16-11708
As for the pain she endured during her wait for the paramedics, in her complaint, Westfall says only that she "was moaning in pain" while waiting in the back of the police car, without more details as to the severity of her pain.
See May 10, 2018 28(j) at 2. Defendants justify the 28(j) letter by citing one of our recent unpublished opinions regarding the warrantless search of a car, United States v. Beene , 733 Fed.Appx. 740 (5th Cir. 2018).
Beene addresses the warrantless search of a car, not a home, and it thus did not alter our house-search case law.
-
364 F.3d 578 Fifth Circuit March 24, 2004 No. 02-30629
Under this test, a search of the house or office is generally not reasonable without a warrant issued on probable cause.
We think the holding in Buie, notwithstanding the search there was conducted pursuant to a warrant and not consent, supports the police search here.
” of the car, even though "a full search of the passenger compartment” would be authorized "pursuant to a custodial *585 arrest.”
-
349 F.3d 192 Fifth Circuit October 23, 2003 No. 02-41130
Buchholtz approached Bruton and asked for his consent to search the car. Buchholtz asked Bruton, "Do you care if I search the car? It's voluntary. I'm going to call a dog." Bruton responded, "Why do you want to search?"
Bruton admitted that he and Grant "smoked a joint" much earlier when they were in Houston and that there may be some ashes in the car. 12 At 11:33 p.m. Buchholtz conducted a visual search of the passenger side of the car.
Bruton fled in the Chevy and Grant attempted to prevent the officer from chasing Bruton by lying down in front of the police car.
-
288 F.3d 706 Fifth Circuit April 12, 2002 No. 01-40222
“The bulwark of Fourth Amendment protection” is its requirement that “police obtain a warrant from a neutral and disinterested magistrate before embarking upon a search.” Franks v.
the area of the search and was unaware of the warrant.”).
The defendants in Edwards and Sherrill did drive not closely to a surveilling police car in an apparent attempt to conduct counter-surveillance, nor did they did drive vehicles toward law enforcement officers in a threatening
-
382 F.3d 500 Fifth Circuit August 19, 2004 No. 02-40719
Brigham denied that any illegal items were in the car and acceded to Conklin's request for a search. Conklin first removed all of the passengers from the car and patted them down.
Mere police questioning, without some nonconsensual restraint on one's liberty, is not a "seizure" or detention. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 2382 , 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991).
Some lines of police questioning before the initiation of a computer check are often reasonable, as they may enable swift resolution of the stop.
-
382 F.3d 500 Fifth Circuit August 18, 2003 No. 02-40719
He briefed the local police officers on the situation, and remarked that he was going to try to get consent to search but would search the vehicle anyway because none of the four had standing to protest. 11 After speaking to the
The trooper returned to Santiago with the woman's license, but without the registration, which Santiago subsequently retrieved from the car. Id.
They do not signal or facilitate oppressive police tactics that may burden the public — for all suspects (even the guilty ones) may protect themselves fully by declining to answer.
-
612 F.3d 341 Fifth Circuit July 15, 2010 No. 08-41063
without reasonable suspicion .... ”).
, inconsistent stories, and a rental car that was being driven without its authorized driver did not add up to reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking.
The historic facts concerning the stop and subsequent search of Williamson’s car are largely set out in the "Factual Background” section of the magistrate judge’s April 10, 2008 modified report and recommendation.
-
848 F.3d 678 Fifth Circuit February 16, 2017 No. 16-10312
officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within [basic First Amendment] principles.” 47 This right, however, “is not without limitations.” 48 Like all speech, 49 filming the police “may be subject to reasonable
In Bullock, the defendant was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car for 30 to 45 minutes while the officers executed a search warrant for narcotics. Bullock, 623 F.3d at 1009, 1011.
But the police cannot arrest an individual solely for refusing patrol car for 30 to 45 minutes after she refused to let sheriff’s deputies search her home without a search warrant). 77 Freeman, 483 F.3d at 413 . 78Flores v.
-
352 F.3d 994 Fifth Circuit September 8, 2003 No. 02-10500
when police are executing a validly executed search warrant for contraband.” 48 Heitschmidt involved a police search of a house in which the occupant, Heitsch-midt, had little known connection at the time of the search to the
We are aware of the circumstances that the police believed they were actually facing when they executed their search warrant.
Given the number of persons inside the Club, detention of plaintiffs for as long as reasonably required for the police to search the premises and to search and arrest the individuals named in the warrant may have been permissible.
-
279 F.3d 302 Fifth Circuit January 11, 2002 No. 00-20682
When a person gives consent to search, that consent “may, but does not necessarily, dissipate the taint” of a prior Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124, 127 (5th Cir.1993).
The police misconduct, however, was not flagrant. Officer Ordaz’s physical manipulation of the suitcase likely would not have been considered a search under Fifth Circuit precedent at the time.
United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)) for the proposition that, “To warrant suppression, the challenged evidence must have been obtained ‘by exploitation of [the alleged] illegality.’”
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.