The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion in United States v. Hawkins, a case that clarifies the limits on an officer’s ability to prolong a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion.

​

In the early afternoon, officers from the West Virginia drug task force conducted surveillance in an area associated with high-volume drug activity...​

​

​

The Tenth Circuit recently released their decision for United States v. Nahkai, which examines when someone is in custody for Miranda. The Tenth Circuit held that Andy Nahkai was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during his interview with investigators in an unlocked vehicle outside his home. The court concluded that the setting, lack of physical restraint, and overall circumstances would not have led a reasonable person to believe that they were under formal arrest.

​

The Fifth Circuit held that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective pat-down of a vehicle passenger after discovering that the driver possessed a concealed firearm and had been dishonest about it. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances, including the driver’s weapon, the nighttime stop in a high-crime area, and the officer being outnumbered, created reasonable suspicion that the passenger could also be armed and dangerous.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Thomas highlights the critical distinction between a consensual police encounter and a Fourth Amendment seizure. The case arose from an officer’s response to a minor complaint in a fast-food parking lot that ultimately led to the discovery of significant criminal evidence. 

​​

​

​

​

​

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court explained how the Fourth Amendment applies to the use of a geofence warrant. In doing so, the Court was tasked with considering two questions: whether the police conducted a “search” when they obtained the cell phone location data that led to Chatrie’s arrest, and if so, whether that search was reasonable given the features of the war­rant they employed.

​

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Watkins examines the limits of Fourth Amendment protections in the context of motel rooms and publicly accessible walkways. The case focuses on whether an officer’s observation through a small gap in motel room curtains constituted an unlawful search. Ultimately, the court concluded that observations made with an officer’s natural senses from a publicly accessible walkway do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

​