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 The court found unpublished and inconclusive case law sufficient to demonstrate that a dog sniff of a garage is “close enough to the line of validity.”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.

In a decision authored by Justice Alito last week, the Supreme Court found that laws imposing criminal penalties for refusal to take a breath test do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches, but that criminal penalties for refusal to take a blood test do.

Evidence seized during an unconstitutional stop may be used against a defendant where law enforcement discovers an outstanding, valid arrest warrant for the stopped individual, the U.S. Supreme Court held this week.

A Veterans Affairs police officer was charged with lack of candor, among other charges and specifications, and although the Board sustained the employee’s removal, it reversed the charge of Lack of Candor, clarifying the law in the process.

The Eighth Circuit recently held that a defendant lacks a privacy interest in the information contained in the magnetic strip on credit, debit, or gift cards.

In October 2015, we informed you the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had granted en banc review of Fourth Amendment issues in United States v. Ganias, regarding whether the government may retain computer evidence obtained outside the scope of an original, probable-cause search warrant and prosecute people for crimes based on that evidence.

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.