The Third Circuit recently joined the likes of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits to hold that officers possessing only an arrest warrant may not enter a home without probable cause to believe that an arrestee resides at and is present within the residence.

Defendant’s acquiescence to the question, “May I look for your car?” constituted his valid consent to a search of his vehicle under the circumstances, the Seventh Circuit recently held.

The Sixth Circuit recently found that metadata used to route communications on wireless phones are business records, created and maintained by wireless carriers. As such, the FBI’s possession of these materials, without a warrant, was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Law enforcement entry into a home, over the homeowner’s objection, was justified because officers reasonably believed a person inside was potentially unable to communicate and held against her will or otherwise in danger, the Eighth Circuit held.

The Seventh Circuit recently held that the use of a “super-sensitive instrument” outside an apartment door violates a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Justifying its holding, the court discussed that people of different ethnicities and race as well as of lower income are more likely to reside in apartment complexes and need to be afforded protection.

An investigatory stop may still be lawful even if the officer falsely cites a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion as the basis for the stop, the Ninth Circuit recently held.

Only one ground of an affidavit in support of a search warrant needs to be supported by probable cause for a district court to deny a Franks hearing request, the Eighth Circuit recently held.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently found a warrantless search constitutional, noting it would be a “miscarriage of justice” to allow the defendants to go scot-free. In doing so, the court of appeals deemed the “consent once removed” doctrine “expendable.”

“No Trespassing” signs do not per se prevent officers from conducting a knock and talk at a residence.

The Ninth Circuit recently held that a probationer’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when probation officers conducted suspicionless searches of his cell phone.

A bottling company and its employees recently brought Bivens claims against federals agents for violating their Fourth Amendment rights when executing a white collar search warrant. The Eighth Circuit held that the agents’ actions were reasonable.

The Fifth Circuit recently concluded that an officer’s use of English to ask a suspect with a language barrier for consent was not coercive.

The First Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim of excessive force, supervisory liability, and denial of medical care in violation of defendant’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Ten weeks of continuous, warrantless surveillance from a public utility pole did not violate a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, the Sixth Circuit held.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the procedural violations of FBI agents in failing to provide sufficient notice of a warrant did not violate a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court decision granting officers qualified immunity after Tasering Ronald H. Armstrong five times. Mr. Armstrong died of suffocation.

In April 2009, Deputy U.S. Marshals Sean Franklin and Christopher Wallace tasered, arrested, and interrogated Mr. Stuart Wright, who was wrongfully identified as a suspected armed and dangerous felon.

To the extent a plaintiff attempts to use a suit to challenge his criminal conviction in the Court of Federal Claims, that court lacks jurisdiction to hear it, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held.

Where an officer was indisputably engaged in an ongoing criminal investigation when a warrantless search occurred, the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment did not apply, the First Circuit recently held.

An anti-subrogation regulation in Kansas preventing insurers from issuing policies containing subrogation clauses came into conflict with the Federal Employees Health Benefit Act (“FEHBA”), but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal common law preempted the Kansas regulation.