- EFF: Law Enforcement Uses Border Search Exception as Fourth Amendment Loophole
- NC: Hot pursuit into def’s house fleeing from a misd arrest was valid
- IN: Search incident of jacket left in car on arrest for outstanding warrant was unreasonable
- Minnesota Lawyer: Fourth Amendment battle brewing over ignition interlock GPS
- Cal.: The good faith exception doesn’t save a cell phone search that wasn’t even valid before Riley in California
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. 20k posts since 2003
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
State courts (and some USDC opinions)
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
--Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Frontier Foundation
NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I still learn something new every day.”
—Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, "The Who Live at Hyde Park" (Showtime 2015)
"I can't talk about my singing. I'm inside it. How can you describe something you're inside of?"
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
—Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today."
— Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property."
—Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."
—United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
---Pepé Le Pew
—Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
Defendant was stopped in front of his own house for driving on a suspended license because of a DWI. The officer confirmed this before attempting an arrest. Defendant refused to submit to arrest and ran in his house. The officers gave chase. The entry into the house and arrest just inside the threshold was valid as a hot pursuit. State v. Adams, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 1236 (Dec. 6, 2016).
Because the court can’t separate findings on objective reasonableness for the officer’s actions in arresting the plaintiff from the evidence of pretext, the case is remanded. Morrow v. Washington, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21576 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016).*
Defendant was pulled over because an LPN check showed his license was suspended and there was a warrant out for him. When he got out of the car, he took off his jacket and left it in the car. Since he was being arrested for the warrant, his car was being towed. The officer called it a “search incident to arrest” although it was an inventory. The search of the jacket went beyond the purposes of the inventory and was unreasonable. Anderson v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 432 (Dec. 5, 2016). [This one might be hard to justify elsewhere if you see it as inventory. It can easily be argued by the state that valuables could be in the jacket, too. Perhaps the problem was the officer being fast and loose with using search incident. Around here, they all use “inventory” like it’s a panacea or Fourth Amendment extinguisher.]
Defendant was parked in an alley and apparently completed a hand-to-hand drug deal. The officer approached the window and surprised defendant who was looking in the envelope he had just received. The officer could see the envelope contained a baggie similar to those holding drugs. Defendant put it in the glove compartment before getting out of the car. There was justification for a search of the car. (Defendant’s response to statements, however, is suppressed for lack of a Miranda warning.) State v. Turner, 2016-Ohio-7983, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4868 (2d Dist. Dec. 2, 2016).*
Minnesota Lawyer: Fourth Amendment battle brewing over ignition interlock GPS by Mike Mosedale
Cal.: The good faith exception doesn’t save a cell phone search that wasn’t even valid before Riley in California
The good faith exception doesn’t save a cell phone search that wasn’t even valid before Riley in California. “In People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84 (Diaz), we held that, incident to a custodial arrest, police may search through data on a defendant’s cellular phone without obtaining a warrant. The United States Supreme Court subsequently held to the contrary in Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. __ (Riley). We conclude the warrantless search of defendant Paul Macabeo’s phone would not have been proper even under our decision in Diaz, and a reasonably well-trained officer would have so known. Under these circumstances, the search violated the Fourth Amendment and the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply. We reverse the Court of Appeal’s contrary judgment.” People v. Macabeo, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 9586 (Dec. 5, 2016).
It wasn’t even valid under the search incident doctrine, so why would the GFE conceivably even apply?
big think: Edward Snowden: The Rule 41 Amendment Returns Us to the 1760s by Natalie Showmaker:
NPR: Military-Trained Police May Be Less Hasty To Shoot, But That Got This Vet Fired by Quil Lawrence:
There are plenty of recent stories involving white police officers who have shot and killed black men, including some who are on trial for those shootings. Then there’s the case of a white cop who did not shoot a black man holding a gun — and it may have cost him his job.
What kind of thinking requires a police officer to think to kill before thinking to try to save a life? Deadly force should be the last resort or the only option when it’s life or death, not the first response. In addition, that could end up being evidence the next time an officer of that department shoots somebody. “Protect and Serve” whom?
Law.com (editorial): Lawyers Must Be Ready to Fight for the Rule of Law:
It remains to be seen whether the rule of law will be upheld as it has been in the past, or whether it will be betrayed from within by its defenders or shrugged away by an indifferent and unappreciative people. Until we see how bench, bar and public meet the coming test, it is too early for self-congratulation about our resilience.
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages, and a search warrant on probable cause is required to search for and seize them. (The federal good faith exception is not applicable, and there is no state good faith exception.) Capital murder convictions and death sentence reversed. Love v. State, 2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1445 (Dec. 7, 2016):
Post-Grady, the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment required the trial court conduct a hearing if the defendant objects to GPS monitoring. State v. Stroessenreuther, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 1240 (Dec. 6, 2016):