M.D.Fla.: Def had officer’s card and could have revoked consent to search cell phone by telephone call or letter

When officers took defendant’s phone by consent and one left his card, he could have revoked consent by calling and leaving word with his office or writing a letter. United States v. Butler, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51782 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50713 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2020):

Continue reading
Posted in Consent | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Def had officer’s card and could have revoked consent to search cell phone by telephone call or letter

W.D.Va.: Whistleblower CI has “strong[er] motive to supply accurate information.”

In a health care fraud case, a whistleblower confidential informant for a search warrant was entitled to more credit than a regular CI because of a likely “strong[er] motive to supply accurate information.” The search warrant for documents here was not overbroad and was as specific as possible. United States v. Indivior Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51692 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2020):

Continue reading
Posted in Informant hearsay, Particularity | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: Whistleblower CI has “strong[er] motive to supply accurate information.”

MT: State’s acting on nonbinding immigration detainer is an arrest subject to 4A and state law

An immigration detainer is not a demand to a state law enforcement officer to make a civil arrest, but, if a state law enforcement officer acts on it, it is a new arrest. It is ripe for judicial review because, on the state’s mootness challenge, it is capable of repetition but evading review. It implicates the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. Ramon v. Short, 2020 MT 69, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 876 (Mar. 25, 2020):

Continue reading
Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on MT: State’s acting on nonbinding immigration detainer is an arrest subject to 4A and state law

EFF: EFF, ACLU & CDT Argue Five Months of Warrantless Covert 24/7 Video Surveillance Violates 4A

EFF: EFF, ACLU & CDT Argue Five Months of Warrantless Covert 24/7 Video Surveillance Violates Fourth Amendment by Jennifer Lynch (“Should the fact that your neighbors can see the outside of your house mean the police can use a camera to record everything that happens there for more than five months? We don’t think so either. That’s why we joined ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Center for Democracy & Technology in filing an amicus brief last week in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court arguing the Fourth Amendment and Massachusetts’s state equivalent protect us from warrantless video surveillance of our homes.”)

Posted in Pole cameras, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on EFF: EFF, ACLU & CDT Argue Five Months of Warrantless Covert 24/7 Video Surveillance Violates 4A

Law.com: Understanding the Privacy Implications of Digital Technology

Law.com: Understanding the Privacy Implications of Digital Technology by Leonard Deutchman (“In this month’s article, we will examine the Superior Court’s reasoning in Dunkins and compare it to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Carpenter. As with so many Fourth Amendment decisions, we will review the underlying facts that the courts believed did or did not give rise to any expectation of privacy.”)

Posted in Cell site location information, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Law.com: Understanding the Privacy Implications of Digital Technology

CA11: Failure to join in the codef’s motion to suppress is waiver

Failure to join in the codefendant’s motion to suppress is waiver. United States v. Russa, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9288 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2020).

In a 2254 COA: “Assuming that counsel was deficient in failing to raise the plain-view argument during the suppression hearing, Morton fails to establish that reasonable jurists would debate whether the result of the proceeding would have been different if counsel had raised this argument.” There was too much wiggle room in the facts to show IAC. Morton v. Davis, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9305 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA11: Failure to join in the codef’s motion to suppress is waiver

FL2: Without a link to crime, grabbing one’s waistband and pockets not RS

No weapon had been involved in a robbery the police were investigating, and they knew defendant wasn’t the robber. When they approached and he felt his waistband and pockets, they didn’t have reasonable suspicion. Townsend v. State, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 3858 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 25, 2020).

A citizen informant’s report is not the same as an anonymous tipster. Defendant was validly seized when he was cornered and the officer grabbed his arm. Fields v. State, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 3853 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 25, 2020).

A seven month delay in seeking a search warrant for child pornography wasn’t stale. State v. Simmons, 2020 S.C. LEXIS 46 (Mar. 25, 2020).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on FL2: Without a link to crime, grabbing one’s waistband and pockets not RS

M.D.Fla.: Seven week delay for SW for cell phone validly seized wasn’t unreasonable

A delay of seven weeks for seeking a search warrant for a cell phone already validly seized wasn’t unreasonable. Several cases approved long delays, and this is near the outer limit, but still valid. United States v. Butler, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50713 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2020).

A Fourth Amendment claim can’t be raised in a state habeas [a universal rule]. Clary v. State, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 866 (Mar. 24, 2020).

Officers lacked reasonable suspicion for a defendant’s probation search. His congregating with others in a high crime area, nervousness seeing the police, and allegedly seeing a rigid item in a fabric shoulder bag that could have been a gun just didn’t add up to reasonable suspicion. [In other jurisdictions, this would have gone the other way.] United States v. Cole, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50959 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020).*

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Seven week delay for SW for cell phone validly seized wasn’t unreasonable

VT: Smell of mj and surrender of a small amount in recreational mj state wasn’t PC

There wasn’t probable cause under the state constitution to seize defendant’s vehicle because the tip was too vague and general even if it satisfied the state rules and properly identified the driver, his smoking, and the presence of air fresheners in the car. Defendant’s vague travel plans and his nervousness were insufficient to show probable cause that there were illicit drugs in the vehicle other than the marijuana he was carrying. The smell of marijuana and his voluntary surrender of a recreational amount of marijuana were insufficient to establish probable cause that defendant possessed additional marijuana in criminal amounts or drugs other than the recreational marijuana. State v. Clinton-Aimable, 2020 VT 30, 2020 Vt. LEXIS 32 (Mar. 22, 2020).

The encounter here was consensual and led to the officer running the VIN and finding the vehicle was stolen. That led to a valid search of the vehicle. United States v. Hilleland, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50495 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2020).*

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on VT: Smell of mj and surrender of a small amount in recreational mj state wasn’t PC

E.D.Mich.: Email SW signed on SignNow app valid

An email search warrant signed by the issuing judge on a tablet with the SignNow app was valid. United States v. Lantzy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50057 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2020).

“We conclude that the circumstances here were such that Stankye could reasonably believe that A.S. [an alleged sexual assault victim] was inside Shakir’s home and in need of assistance, a sufficient basis to conduct a warrantless search.” Therefore, the entry was valid, and, alternatively, the officer gets qualified immunity. Shakir v. Stankye, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9089 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2020).

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Email SW signed on SignNow app valid

N.D.Ohio: A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases

A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases. United States v. Grant, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50390 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2020):

Continue reading
Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: A generic list of the items to be seized is appropriate in drug cases

CA4: Some damage can be expected in execution of a SW; is it “objectively reasonable” or not?

Some damage can be expected in executing a search warrant. Whether it was so excessive to be objectively unreasonable is the question. Here, there was damage, but it wasn’t unreasonable under the circumstances, and the officers get qualified immunity. Cybernet, LLC v. David, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9163 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2020). A lot here:

Continue reading
Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA4: Some damage can be expected in execution of a SW; is it “objectively reasonable” or not?