Wired: California Now Has the Nation’s Best Digital Privacy Law by Kim Zetter
CALIFORNIA CONTINUED ITS long-standing tradition for forward-thinking privacy laws today when Governor Jerry Brown signed a sweeping law protecting digital privacy rights.
The landmark Electronic Communications Privacy Act bars any state law enforcement agency or other investigative entity from compelling a business to turn over any metadata or digital communications—including emails, texts, documents stored in the cloud—without a warrant. It also requires a warrant to track the location of electronic devices like mobile phones, or to search them.
The legislation, which easily passed the Legislature last month, is the most comprehensive in the country, says the ACLU.
eff.org: Victory in California! Gov. Brown Signs CalECPA, Requiring Police to Get a Warrant Before Accessing Your Data.
California’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) – SB 178
Dismissal of a Fourth Amendment civil rights claim under the federal heightened pleading standard was not an “adjudication on the merits” for collateral estoppel in state court. Fox v. Johnson, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 814 (October 6, 2015):
Connecticut Law Tribune: Norm Pattis: Police Departments Should Be Held Liable for Shootings:
As of Oct. 5, 754 people, or almost three people per day, were shot to death by police officers in the United States in 2015. This information was not compiled by a law enforcement agency, although it easily could have been. Instead, The Washington Post has been gathering the data and posting it daily on its website. You can find the tally by googling “Washington Post police shootings.”
The officer here responded to a suspicious activity report and found a stolen trailer in defendant’s yard with a piece of pipe on it. He inquired of dispatch and was told defendant was on probation for brandishing a weapon. He did not inquire whether there was a search term, and he assumed there was because he never encountered a suspect on probation for a weapons offense that did not have a search term. “Later, Deputy Yamaguchi learned that, at the time of the search, defendant was no longer on probation for the brandishing a weapon conviction. Defendant’s probation for that offense had ended on March 1, 2012, about one month prior to the search of his residence. Defendant, however, was on probation at the time of the search for a felony case, case No. INF028639, which contained search terms. Deputy Yamaguchi acknowledged that at the time he entered defendant’s home to conduct the probation search, he did not know any specific terms and conditions of defendant’s probation and that law enforcement officers do not directly contact the court to find an individual’s specific terms and conditions.” The exclusionary rule would not be applied because the officer was acting in good faith reliance on the probation report and his experience, despite the fact that specific probation expired because there still was a probation search term on defendant. People v. Wolfgang, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 877 (4th Dist. October 5, 2015):
WaPo: Here’s a way the government can easily get your phone records without asking a judge by Jerry Markon:
Administrative subpoenas are increasingly common, hard to fight and, some say, overly intrusive.
NYTimes: Supreme Court Prepares to Take On Politically Charged Cases By Adam Liptak:
WASHINGTON — The last Supreme Court term ended with liberal victories, conservative disarray and bruised relations among the justices. The new one, which opens on Monday, marks the start of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s second decade on the court and will reveal whether the last term’s leftward drift and acrimony were anomalies or something more lasting.
At least most Fourth Amendment cases aren’t.
Suppression of evidence in state court does not per se raise a basis for a claim in federal court on whether the officers violated clearly established rights, particularly when the suppression hearing transcript wasn’t provided to the federal court. Cleveland v. Liberty County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17374 (5th Cir. September 30, 2015):
To justify the automobile exception in Oregon, the vehicle must be mobile when first encountered in connection with a crime. If parked, a warrant must be sought. State v. Belander, 274 Ore. App. 167, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1175 (September 30, 2015).*
The officer had all the occupants get out of the car during the stop. The smell of marijuana was strongest around defendant’s person, so that was reasonable suspicion that defendant was carrying. Therefore, consent could be sought, and consent isn’t disputed. State v. Vennell, 274 Ore. App. 94, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1176 (September 30, 2015).* [Will this change now that recreational use in Oregon is permitted, or will the “strong” smell still be justification?]
Officers responding to a 3 am bar fight ended up talking with defendant and with him in handcuffs. He turned his body repeatedly as officers tried to pat him down. After three paragraphs of explaining, the court shows why a patdown for officer safety was permitted. State v. Castillo-Lima, 274 Ore. App. 67, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1180 (September 30, 2015)* [This case is a good example of the extremes Oregon courts go through to justify warrant exceptions. Not just one fact and done, but a detailed analysis of consequences of what happened and why it was reasonable.]
Virginia statute that permitted natural gas transmission companies to enter open fields for survey purposes did not facially violate the Fourth Amendment or Virginia Constitution. Charlottesville Div. v. Dominion Transmission, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132554 (W.D.Va. September 30, 2015).
2255 petitioner challenged defense counsel’s failure to object to an alleged consent search, but it is rejected [somehow] as being conclusory [which I don’t get]. United States v. Davis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133972 (S.D.Tex. August 21, 2015).*
2255 petitioner claimed newly discovered evidence of an illegal entry onto his curtilage to look in his truck. It didn’t matter because the truck was independently stopped on the street, and the same view occurred there. He also pled under a plea agreement that waived the search issues. Honish v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134682 (E.D.Tex. September 9, 2015).*
The Fourth Amendment claim that police entered the bar area of the plaintiff’s business because of police calls fails because it was open to the public. The selective enforcement claim fails on the facts. There is no First Amendment right for “swingers” to have sex in plaintiff’s bar area. Beverly Hills Suites LLC v. Town of Windsor Locks, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133137 (D.Conn. September 30, 2015).
Defendant consent claim on his cell phone search fails–it depended on claimed prior illegality which was already found legal. United States v. Bazzelle, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131886 (N.D.Ill. September 30, 2015).*
The officer asked defendant during a traffic stop if he was armed, and he didn’t answer and was scanning the area like he was about to flee. Defendant also repeatedly asked to get back into the car. The officer had reasonable suspicion for a patdown. State v. Carson, 2015-Ohio-4110, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3969 (2d Dist. October 2, 2015).*
Information that was 1-2 years old was included in the affidavit, and there was current information, too. The old information supported showing that defendant’s counterfeiting operation was “protracted and continuous and that it was ongoing just two days to two weeks prior to the warrant application” and, thus, not stale. United States v. Bagley, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131590 (W.D.Pa. September 29, 2015).
The USMJ’s credibility determinations are correct on probable cause, and defendant’s arguments seeking to undermine the officers’ credibility are unavailing. United States v. Barnes, 2015 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 133397 (N.D.Ga. September 30, 2015),* adopting 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133879 (N.D.Ga. August 18, 2015).*
The driver of the vehicle was arrested on outstanding warrants and that justified an inventory. The officers actually nearly had, or at least were striving for, probable cause there were drugs in the car but couldn’t corroborate the informants. State v. Johnson, 2015-Ohio-4115, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3968 (2d Dist. September 30, 2015).*
The Hill: Privacy hawks see momentum in encryption fight by Cory Bennett:
Digital rights advocates are looking to capitalize on positive signals from administration.