Miami New Times: Miami Gardens Cop Says He Was Fired for Reporting Illegal Stop-and-Frisks by Brittany Shammas:
Between 2008 and 2013, Miami Gardens Police ran what one public defender called ‘New York City stop-and-frisk on steroids.’…Now a former Miami Gardens Police officer says he was fired for blowing the whistle on the department’s nefarious practices.
USA Today: Column: Predictive policing violates more than it protects by William Isaac & Kristian Lum:
System meant to alleviate police resources disproportionately targets minority communities, raises Fourth Amendment concerns.
WaPo: Companies may be willing to pay for data from Fitbits, other wearable sensors by Des Bieler:
Naturally, privacy concerns abound here, and Olshansky emphasized that he was ‘acutely sensitive to those issues.’ He added: ‘We think that personal health data should be owned by the individual, not by any Big Brother. You should decide yourself whether or not you want to release that information to anyone.’
Restating the Tenth Circuit’s rule permitting blanket suppression for serious overseizure contrary to the warrant, the court finds that this one doesn’t measure up. The inventory went on for 50 pages, but defendant only challenged three items of artwork that disappeared. United States v. Wyatt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166731 (D.Colo. Nov. 29, 2016):
On this record with a wealth of reasonable suspicion and then probable cause, a strip search incident to arrest was justified at the police station in the breathalyser room. Defendant stripped and bent over but refused to spread his cheeks. Still, the officer could see a baggie peeking out of defendant’s anus and removed it. Williams v. State, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 1464 (Dec. 2, 2016):
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, but the officers had been briefed on defendant by the DEA. (The pre-Jones GPS monitoring of defendant’s car for 73 days is valid under Davis.) He wouldn’t make eye contact, his hands were shaking, and his story didn’t make sense both as to where he was going but also as to what he was doing because it was directly contrary to what the DEA had already told the officer. A dog alert after that led to a search of the car for 45 minutes which didn’t find anything. Based on all they knew, that did not dissipate the probable cause. United States v. Berry, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21500 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016):
Officers in the U.S. received information from Queensland, Australia that an Australian using a hotmail account had been emailing child pornography. One of those was in this district. By the time the search warrant was sought nine months later, the hotmail account had been closed. “Age of the information supporting a warrant application is a factor in determining probable cause. If too old, the information is stale, and probable cause may no longer exist. Age alone, however, does not determine staleness. … Rather, we must also examine the nature of the crime and the type of evidence.” In this circuit, search warrants far older than that have been sustained. United States v. Coca, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165594 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 1, 2016). [Anybody aware of a CP staleness challenge ever working?]
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality. Defendant specifically challenged whether the officer could have seen the stock of a shotgun. Granting that possibility, there was still reasonable suspicion without that. United States v. Perez-Boscana, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165557 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 30, 2016).*
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the search of defendant’s bedroom did not fall within the emergency aid exception to warrant requirement in the state constitution. First, defendant was sitting outside the house when officers arrived and was agitated and clearly able to articulate her emotions. While a second emergency occurred when defendant locked herself in her bedroom after expressing suicidal thoughts, that emergency dissipated when the officer gained access to the room and found defendant on the phone, without any pills or water nearby. Further search of the room was unreasonable. State v. Potter, 282 Ore. App. 605 (Nov. 30, 2016).
Any motion to suppress before trial would have been futile and denied. There was a positive dog alert, and that gave officers justification for searching the car. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. United States v. Begley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165054 (E.D.Ky. Oct. 28, 2016).*
NBC News: Police Body Cams Spark Concerns About Privacy, Mass Surveillance by Catherine Chapman:
Body-worn cameras are increasingly being adopted by law enforcement across the country, offering a potential antidote to police brutality but also raising fears about mass surveillance and questions about how the footage is used.
There is no deference to the trial court’s findings of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. They are ultimate questions which can be appealed. Here, the officers had reasonable suspicion to continue defendant’s detention for a dog sniff. State v. Lugo, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 753 (Nov. 30, 2016).
The state sought defendant’s medical records without a search warrant, and he moved to suppress. The state then got a search warrant and argued the motion was moot, which the trial court accepted. Not so. The state can’t undo the illegality by just issuing a search warrant after it’s already got the records. At least nothing in the record supports the trial court’s finding because the state never put the warrant in as evidence at the hearing. State v. Merriweather, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4866 (1st Dist. Dec. 2, 2016)* (“this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court”).