Unreasonable Expectations: A 4th Amendment Podcast

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "August 31, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 09:27:33 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Sponsored by The Criminal Mastermind. Learn more at thecriminalmastermind.com.
This podcast is produced using AI to write and narrate summaries of published appellate decisions. It is for informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and may contain errors. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "August 26, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:21:43 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "August 17, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:37:26 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "August 10, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 11:10:54 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "August 3, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 14:56:52 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending: July 27, 2026

James O. Ruane — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:55:53 -0400

This week's federal circuit decisions redrawing the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment (and the constitutional issues around it) for criminal defense practitioners. Seven decisions, in order:

Jones v. City of St. Louis (8th Cir., 7/27/26): Section 1983 excessive-force claims by four pretrial detainees, and the court's case-by-case qualified-immunity analysis.
Horocofsky v. City of Lawrence (10th Cir., 7/24/26): Denial of leave to amend affirmed on Rule 16 procedural grounds.
United States v. Williams (6th Cir., 7/24/26): How an unconditional guilty plea waives your pretrial suppression motions. No Fourth Amendment ruling on the merits.
Carrin v. Strong (11th Cir., 7/23/26): Whether Bivens still offers a damages remedy for federal prison medical care under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments.
United States v. Pereda (9th Cir., 7/23/26): Probable cause to search a trailer and pickup tied to a supervisee under warrantless-search conditions, built on months of GPS residence data (Bumatay, J.; Paez, J., dissenting).
United States v. Fordham (6th Cir., 7/22/26): A RICO prosecution of the Almighty Vice Lord Nation, with four separate suppression rulings including a Title III wiretap necessity challenge.
United States v. Kendrick (7th Cir., 7/9/26): Warrantless pole-camera surveillance of a fenced commercial property is not a Fourth Amendment search. Denial of suppression affirmed.

Hosted by Jay Ruane, Ruane Attorneys, Connecticut.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "July 20, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:06:41 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Unreasonable Expectations: Week Ending "July 14, 2026"

James O. Ruane — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:54:24 -0400

This week's Fourth Amendment decisions from the federal circuit courts, covered case by case.

Ruane DUI and Criminal Defense Attorneys provides statewide criminal defense representation throughout Connecticut. We gladly accept referrals of criminal and DUI defense cases.

Fairfield and New Haven Counties: 203-925-9200
Hartford County and Eastern Connecticut: 860-925-9200
Online at ruaneattorneys.com

This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Attorney Jay Ruane, Juris 415988 is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

This podcast is produced using AI to write and narrate summaries of published appellate decisions. It is for informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and may contain errors. Always read the full opinion before relying on anything discussed here.

Episode 2: ALPR and Chatrie - Where do we go from here?

James O. Ruane — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:01:39 -0400

There is a camera on a pole outside your office, and it is reading every plate that drives past. After Chatrie v. United States, does law enforcement need a warrant to search where your client's car has been? In this point-counterpoint episode, Jay Ruane argues both sides of automatic license plate readers as hard as he can, then tells you where the law actually stands.

You get five arguments that a warrantless ALPR network is unconstitutional and five that it is lawful, built on Carpenter, Jones, Knotts, and New York v. Class, plus the ALPR-specific rulings that matter right now: the Norfolk suppression in Bell v. Commonwealth, its reversal by the Virginia Court of Appeals in Commonwealth v. Church, the Massachusetts mosaic signal in Commonwealth v. McCarthy, the Seventh Circuit pole-camera cases in Tuggle and House, and the standing trap in United States v. Yang. The through-line is one honest anchor: Chatrie strengthens the argument against warrantless access to a detailed, long-term record of movement, but it does not hold that reading a plate, or querying a plate database, is by itself a search.

In this episode:

00:00 The camera on the pole
01:15 Welcome back, and how today's point-counterpoint works
02:15 The mosaic theory, two honest caveats, and the Chatrie anchor
04:00 Five reasons ALPRs are unconstitutional
08:30 A word from our sponsor, The Criminal Mastermind
09:30 Five reasons ALPRs are legal
14:00 Where the line actually falls: the four dials
15:30 Takeaways for your next suppression motion
16:30 Rate, review, and subscribe

The anchor: Chatrie makes the case against warrantless access to a detailed, long-term movement record much stronger, but it does not hold that capturing a plate or querying a plate database is itself a search. The fight turns on scale: camera density, coverage, retention, cross-agency access, and what police actually retrieved about your client.

Cases discussed: Chatrie v. United States (2026); Carpenter v. United States (2018); United States v. Jones (2012); United States v. Knotts (1983); New York v. Class (1986); Commonwealth v. McCarthy (Mass. 2020); Bell v. Commonwealth (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2024); Commonwealth v. Church (Va. Ct. App. 2025); United States v. Tuggle (7th Cir. 2021) and United States v. House; United States v. Yang (9th Cir. 2020).

This episode is brought to you by The Criminal Mastermind, the only coaching community built entirely around criminal defense law firms. Private Slack community, live trainings twice a month, and more than one hundred hours on hiring, marketing, intake, and building systems that let your firm run without you. Learn more at thecriminalmastermind.com.

Enjoyed the show? Leave a five star rating and a review wherever you listen, and hit follow or subscribe so the next case lands in your feed the day it drops.

This episode is legal commentary for practicing attorneys and is not legal advice. The law on ALPRs is unsettled and varies by jurisdiction. AI is used in the scripting and production of this podcast. Before relying on any case discussed, read the opinion yourself.

Episode 1: Chatrie v. United States (The Day Your Phone's Location History Became a Search)

James O. Ruane — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 14:08:29 -0400

A man robbed a Virginia credit union with a phone to his ear, and that one detail sent the case all the way to the Supreme Court. In the debut episode of Unreasonable Expectations, Jay Ruane breaks down Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, the ruling that answers a question defense lawyers have fought over for years: does the government need a warrant to pull your client's Google Location History through a geofence?

Jay walks through the facts, the three-step geofence process, and the wild road this case took to the Court, then unpacks how Justice Kagan's majority extends Carpenter, why two hours of data still counts as a search, and how the Court handled the third-party doctrine. You also get the Jackson and Gorsuch concurrences, the Alito and Barrett dissents, and a plain reading of what the Court did and did not decide. It closes with seven takeaways you can carry into your next suppression hearing.

In this episode:

00:00 The robbery that started it all
01:15 Welcome to Unreasonable Expectations, and what this show does every week
03:00 Two terms you need: geofence and Location History
05:00 The three-step warrant, and how Chatrie got identified
06:15 The wild road to the Supreme Court, and the good-faith trap
08:00 The holding and the lineup: five behind Kagan, six for the result, three dissenting
10:00 How the majority extends Carpenter, and why two hours is still a search
14:30 What the Court did not decide: the warrant, reasonableness, and good faith
15:30 A word from our sponsor, The Criminal Mastermind
16:30 The concurrences: Jackson's roadmap and Gorsuch's property theory
18:30 The dissents: Alito on advisory opinions, Barrett on the third-party doctrine
20:00 Seven takeaways for practicing criminal defense lawyers
23:00 Rate, review, and subscribe

Key point: The Court held that acquiring Google Location History is a Fourth Amendment search, even for a two-hour window and even from a third party. It did not strike the warrant or reach good faith. Those questions go back to the Fourth Circuit on remand, which means Chatrie himself could still lose.

This episode is brought to you by The Criminal Mastermind, the only coaching community built entirely around criminal defense law firms. Private Slack community, live trainings twice a month, and a library of more than one hundred hours on hiring, marketing, intake, and building systems that let your firm run without you. Learn more at thecriminalmastermind.com.

Enjoyed the show? Leave a five star rating and a review wherever you listen, and hit follow or subscribe so the next case lands in your feed the day it drops.