In a significant Fourth Amendment decision, the Third Circuit held in Kendig v. Stolar, 2026 WL 1145264, that law enforcement may, in certain circumstances, be required to include known affirmative-defense evidence in probable cause affidavits submitted in support of arrest warrants.
Case Snapshot
This case arose after Corey Kendig shot and killed a man during a late-night altercation outside a Pennsylvania bar. Kendig claimed that he acted in self-defense after being outnumbered, attacked first, and placed in a chokehold during the confrontation. Surveillance footage and witness accounts supported portions of that account. Despite those facts, the affidavit of probable cause submitted by the investigating trooper did not include any information suggesting Kendig may have acted in self-defense.
Kendig was charged with homicide and related offenses but was ultimately acquitted by a jury. He later filed a Section 1983 action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, arguing that the investigating officer omitted material exculpatory information from the warrant affidavit.
The Holding and Its Limits
The Third Circuit agreed that affirmative-defense evidence can, in some cases, be relevant to probable cause. The Court adopted a middle-ground rule, holding that officers must disclose affirmative-defense evidence when a reasonable officer would “conclusively know” that the defense negates the mens rea of the offense or otherwise excuses the conduct. Applying Pennsylvania law, the Court emphasized that self-defense negated the mental-state elements of the crimes Kendig was charged with, homicide and aggravated assault.
The Court pointed to several allegedly omitted facts, including evidence that Kendig was outnumbered, that another individual initiated the confrontation, that Kendig was placed in a chokehold, and that witnesses described the decedent and his companions as violent and intoxicated.
Despite announcing the above rule, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the trooper on qualified-immunity grounds. The panel concluded that, at the time of the arrest, neither the Third Circuit nor a robust consensus of other courts had clearly established a constitutional requirement that officers include affirmative-defense evidence in warrant affidavits.
Why This Matters
The practical takeaway is clear: officers and prosecutors should expect increased scrutiny of affidavits that omit known exculpatory information bearing on self-defense claims. While Kendig does not impose a blanket requirement to include every potentially favorable fact, it makes clear that law enforcement cannot ignore affirmative defenses that are plainly apparent from the evidence. The decision provides defendants with a potentially important roadmap for challenging arrests and prosecutions based on incomplete probable-cause affidavits.
In one of his first acts as Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche issued a memorandum establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”). The memo outlines what appears to be a structural reset of how the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) intends to investigate and prosecute fraud, involving taxpayer dollars, with an eye toward becoming more centralized, more coordinated, and more aggressive.
A Centralized Approach to a Decentralized Problem
The memo acknowledges that when it comes to fraud enforcement, the DOJ has operated across a patchwork of sections, units, and districts. While effective, the DOJ’s efforts have not always been coordinated. Mr. Blanche’s solution is to create a single division tasked with investigating and prosecuting fraud against taxpayer-funded programs nationwide.
As outlined in the memo, the NFED is designed to function as a hub, coordinating fraud investigations with federal, state, and local law enforcement, agency inspectors general, and program administrators.
Consolidation of Power
The memo immediately places key DOJ components under the operational control of the NFED, including the Tax Section, the Health Care Fraud Unit, and the Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit. Bringing these units under one umbrella suggests a shift toward centralized charging decisions, unified enforcement priorities, and less variation across districts.
Within 30 days, DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy must recommend which similar criminal units should be realigned into NFED, with a presumption that any unit with a similar mission will be folded into NFED.
A Nationwide Footprint
This is not limited to Main Justice.
Within 21 days, every U.S. Attorney’s Office is instructed to designate a prosecutor to work with the NFED and implement its priorities locally. At the same time, districts are instructed to ensure that fraud cases are adequately staffed and aggressively pursued, a sign that fraud cases, particularly those involving government funds, will receive increased attention.
Civil and Criminal—Integration
The memo also emphasizes coordination between criminal prosecutors and the Civil Division. For practitioners, this is a familiar dynamic, particularly in False Claims Act matters. But the directive here suggests a more deliberate and institutionalized approach.
New Infrastructure and Resourcing
NFED will coordinate a National Fraud Detection Center to identify fraud across taxpayer-funded programs and generate leads. The FBI is directed to increase agents, analysts, and forensic accountants for these cases.
Rapid Timetable
This does not appear to be a long-term initiative. The memo sets aggressive deadlines for restructuring, reporting, and expansion, measured in days and weeks, not years.
Practical Takeaways
With the creation of the NFED, the DOJ is building a centralized, data-driven, nationwide fraud enforcement apparatus. Expect more coordination and less variability across districts. The days of markedly different enforcement approaches from one U.S. Attorney’s Office to another may be numbered.
Additionally, based on the allocation and consolidation of resources, fraud enforcement, particularly fraud against the government, is clearly a priority for this Administration. Practitioners should be prioritizing risk assessments for entities touching Medicare/Medicaid, grants, tax credits, procurement, and relief programs.
