#fourth-amendment

#fourth-amendment

By the summer of 2025, the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia (USAO-EDVA) had initiated a criminal investigation into Mr. Comey. ECF Nos. 172-1 and 172-2. As part of the investigation, on September 12, 2025, an FBI agent assigned to the Director's Advisory Team was instructed, apparently with the concurrence of the USAOEDVA, 7 to review "a Blu-ray disc that contained a full Cellebrite extraction and Reader reports of [Mr. Richman's] iPhone and iPad backups." ECF 172-1.

When Judge Cameron Currie surprised Pam Bondi's Counselor, Henry Whitaker, on Thursday with a question about whether DOJ believes Aileen Cannon wrongly dismissed Trump's stolen documents case, Whitaker claimed what distinguished Jack Smith from Lindsey Halligan is that Halligan is closely supervised. I do think that mostly what was driving Judge Cannon's decision in that case was sort of the unique and broad authority that the special counsel possessed sort of free of supervision, which, of course, is an element that we do not have here.

Even assuming the defendant could prove that the government violated the Fourth Amendment or attorney-client privilege in its grand jury presentation (and to be clear, he cannot), the remedy would be to suppress that evidence at trial-not to dismiss the indictment. So, the defendant has not shown that "a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). He is not entitled to access grand jury material.

It looks increasingly likely that because someone snuck a peek into Jim Comey's privileged communications - or, because Tyler Lemons cares enough about his bar license that he disclosed that someone snuck a peek into Comey's privileged communications - Comey may get a ruling that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights, throwing out some of the material used in the government's filing laying out the theory of their case.

In April 2024, current and former athletes from the University of Iowa, Iowa State and Ellsworth Community College filed the lawsuit, alleging that state criminal investigators violated their constitutional rights by using geolocation software, without warrants, to track activity on their cellphones from inside the schools' athletic facilities. The investigation resulted in some criminal charges but more so the loss of NCAA eligibility, which ended the college careers of several athletes.

The Fourth Amendment plainly prohibits the government from doing exactly what it seeks to do here: the Arctic Haze warrants were obtained more than five years ago in a separate and now-closed criminal investigation and authorized the seizure of evidence of separate offenses. Yet the government seeks to turn those warrants into general warrants to continue to rummage through materials belonging to Mr. Comey's lawyer in an effort to seize evidence of separate alleged crimes.

The view that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations against terrorists makes eminent sense. Consider, for example, a case in which a military commander, authorized to use force domestically, received information that, although credible, did not amount to probable cause, that a terrorist group had concealed a weapon of mass destruction in an apartment building. In order to prevent a disaster in which hundreds or thousands of lives would be lost,

Second Circuit judges were perplexed by a Manhattan landlord's request that the court declare unconstitutional a New York City law requiring landlords who participate in Section 8 housing to allow searches of their premises. The plaintiff-the owner of a 48-unit residential apartment building-is appealing the dismissal of his case asserting the law violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

In January, AB 379 will take effect, reinstating a repealed law that criminalizes "loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex." Governor Gavin Newsom, signed the bill, saying it will help protect victims of human trafficking. However, critics are its unclear language will enable law enforcement to detain individuals based on the subjective suspicion of having an "intent to purchase a commercial sex act."

In March 2021, a 25-year-old US citizen was traveling through Chicago's Midway airport when they were stopped by US border patrol agents. Though charged with no crime, the 25-year-old was subjected to a cheek swab to collect their DNA, which was sent to the FBI, according to a new report. The unnamed citizen was later admitted into the country. Their DNA was added to the FBI's database of genetic material despite the lack of criminal charges.

Traditionally, drunk driving cases have been about an officer arresting someone when they pull up and smell alcohol or see bloodshot eyes. But some judges are saying in addition to that, you need evidence that the person is driving erratically or unlawfully.