On January 3, 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed a House Resolution, adopting rules for the 115th Congress.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that an individual has a property right in his or her pet, the unreasonable seizure of which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The First Circuit recently reaffirmed that lack of reasonable suspicion to arrest a person was insufficient to suppress evidence arising from that arrest in an immigration proceeding. 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when his communications with an overseas foreign national were incidentally intercepted.

The Ninth Circuit recently granted qualified immunity to an officer who arrested a driver without actually possessing probable cause to authorize the arrest because a reasonable officer could have known that probable cause did exist for the arrest.

A driver of a disabled vehicle was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment where an officer asked for and received possession of the driver’s license, the Eleventh Circuit recently held.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently found that the reckless omission of facts regarding an individual’s confinement to certain living areas of a residence did not prevent a finding of probable cause that the individual conducted criminal activity in other areas of the home.

Twice pepper-spraying a detainee in the back of a patrol car did not violate the detainee’s Fourth Amendment rights, where the detainee was violently kicking the car door and resisting arrest, the Eleventh Circuit recently held in a § 1983 matter. 

Applying the “consent-once-removed” doctrine for the first time since the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Pearson v. Callahan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently granted police officers qualified immunity after entering an individual’s residence to assist his former partner in obtaining property.

A family member lawfully consented to the search of another’s password protected computer, where the computer owner did not attempt to keep computer password private.

Over a wiretap, an FBI agent heard Robert Williams, a suspected leader of the drug trafficking organization the “Harvey Hustlers,” give permission to an associate to kill an individual he identified as “Tye” or “Todd.” The agent overheard Williams state that the target was driving around in a silver Infiniti coupe in the Kennedy Heights neighborhood of Avondale, Louisiana.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a defendant’s consent to a search, obtained after invoking her right to remain silent, is not testimonial evidence that can be suppressed as a Miranda violation.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit determined that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied to an unlawfully obtained blood sample because the blood would inevitably have been produced under a state law requiring the collection of blood after a sex crime conviction.

Officers violated a § 1983 plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights when they relied on his Colorado state residency as justification for continuing a traffic stop and searching his vehicle for drugs, the Tenth Circuit held this week.

This week, the Seventh Circuit determined that the third party doctrine, set forth in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), and Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), applies to a computer user’s I.P. address.

Warrantless pinging of defendant’s cell phone was reasonable where government proved good faith belief immediate apprehension was necessary after defendant was dangerous and linked to a body of person the government had approached to be an informant, says Second Circuit.

Last week, the Fifth Circuit determined that the good faith exception applied to prevent the suppression of evidence obtained after officers used a canine to sniff the perimeter of a garage. The court found unpublished and inconclusive case law sufficient to demonstrate that a dog sniff of a garage is “close enough to the line of validity.”

The Second Circuit recently found that while the avoidance of a checkpoint may be considered when determining whether law enforcement had reasonable suspicion, it cannot itself establish reasonable suspicion.

Yesterday, the First Circuit denied a defendant’s privacy interest in mail addressed to his “personal addresses” that responded to fraudulent invoices the defendant sent to various trade associations.

Last week, the Sixth Circuit found that a warrant to search an individual’s home could not be based on criminal activity linked to a car registered at that address.