NYT: An American Citizen Is Released From Immigration Custody After Nearly a Month

NYT: An American Citizen Is Released From Immigration Custody After Nearly a Month by Manny Fernandez
Continue reading

Posted in Immigration arrests, Immigration checkpoints | Comments Off on NYT: An American Citizen Is Released From Immigration Custody After Nearly a Month

NYT: Barr Revives Encryption Debate, Calling on Tech Firms to Allow for Law Enforcement

NYT: Barr Revives Encryption Debate, Calling on Tech Firms to Allow for Law Enforcement by Katie Benner:

The attorney general, reopening the conversation on security vs. privacy, said that encryption and other measures effectively turned devices into “law-free zones.”

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on NYT: Barr Revives Encryption Debate, Calling on Tech Firms to Allow for Law Enforcement

D.Ariz.: Affidavit of another didn’t show offer of proof for standing

The declaration used to attempt to show defendant’s guest standing doesn’t tie defendant’s relationship to the property to the time of the search. Moreover, on the day in question, his truck was parked along a fence far enough from the house that looking in the back of the truck was possible and didn’t show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the back of the truck. United States v. Velasco, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121619 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2019).*

The state appellate court’s application of the state standard of review of fact findings did not deny him a fair opportunity to litigate his search issue in state court under Stone v. Powell. Rodriguez-Olivas v. Director, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121577 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2019).*

Posted in Abstention, Burden of pleading | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Affidavit of another didn’t show offer of proof for standing

E.D.Mich.: Ptf’s guilty plea was collateral estoppel to his § 1983 search claim

Plaintiff’s civil search claim was barred by collateral estoppel by his guilty plea that there was sufficient evidence to convict. The officer gets qualified immunity for relying on a search warrant. Dabish v. McMahon, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121399 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2019).*

The district court erred in not granting qualified immunity to an officer whose alleged judicial deception in getting the search warrant wasn’t material to the probable cause. Detention during the search was also entitled to qualified immunity. Advanced Bldg. & Fabrication v. California Highway Patrol, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21176 (9th Cir. July 17, 2019).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Ptf’s guilty plea was collateral estoppel to his § 1983 search claim

M.D.Fla.: When the automobile exception applies and def is in custody, a SW still isn’t required

There was probable cause by a plain view so the automobile exception applies. The fact defendant as in custody doesn’t require a search warrant. United States v. Lightsey, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121669 (M.D. Fla. July 3, 2019).

There was an “eminently reasonable” inference that defendants were engaged in serial shoplifting from a Walmart. After leaving and going to their truck, they went back into the store. There was probable cause. United States v. Vance, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121702 (E.D. Tenn. July 1, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120697 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2019).*

The trial court erred in suppressing jail telephone calls obtained by grand jury subpoena. State v. Jackson, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 116 (July 19, 2019).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: When the automobile exception applies and def is in custody, a SW still isn’t required

OR: “related to controlled substances offenses” in a cell phone SW was not particular

The cell phone search warrant was not sufficiently particular under the state constitution because there were no practical limits in the phrase “related to controlled substances offenses.” State v. Savath, 298 Ore. App. 495 (July 17, 2019):
Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Particularity | Comments Off on OR: “related to controlled substances offenses” in a cell phone SW was not particular

The Atlantic: The Stuff of Dystopian Nightmare

The Atlantic: The Stuff of Dystopian Nightmare by Garrett Epps:

ACLU lawyers have stopped border agents from demanding ID after domestic flights.

Posted in Immigration checkpoints | Comments Off on The Atlantic: The Stuff of Dystopian Nightmare

OH5: PC is determined on the totality, not each isolated fact

Defendant’s challenge to probable cause for the search warrant isolates each fact. Applying the totality of circumstances, there is probable cause. State v. Beightler, 2019-Ohio-2946, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3037 (5th Dist. July 18, 2019).*

Defendant doesn’t meet the Franks threshold. The questioned things are not material, and, even if corrected with all he says that was missing, there still would be probable cause. United States v. Hansen, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119334 (D. Idaho July 18, 2019).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH5: PC is determined on the totality, not each isolated fact

VT: Inquest subpoena for video of police involved shooting is a public record

A television station sought access to a video of a police involved shooting produced before an inquest. The record is presumptively an open record. “The pivotal question in this case is whether a trial-court order granting a motion to quash a subpoena issued in the context of an inquest is categorically exempt from public disclosure. We hold that the order is a public record presumptively subject to disclosure under the Rules for Public Access to Court Records, and conclude that there is no basis for sealing the record in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant Gray Television, Inc.’s motion to unseal the order.” In re VSP-TK / 1-16-18 Shooting ((Gray Television, Inc.), 2019 VT 47, 2019 Vt. LEXIS 92 (July 19, 2019).

Posted in Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on VT: Inquest subpoena for video of police involved shooting is a public record

CA9: A state SW executed by a federal officer doesn’t violate 4A

A state issued search warrant is not executed in violation of the Fourth Amendment because a federal law enforcement officer executed it. United States v. Cruz-Ramirez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21528 (9th Cir. July 19, 2019).

Defendant wasn’t “in custody” when he was questioned in his own home during execution of a search warrant for child pornography. It was a familiar place, neutral, and brief. United States v. Boshoff, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119582 (D. Me. July 18, 2019).*

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: A state SW executed by a federal officer doesn’t violate 4A

D.Ariz.: Def failed to show standing at the place where he intermittently spent nights but no showing of when

Defendant failed to show standing in the home of another. He and his girlfriend had a key to the premises where he intermittently spent the night over a fair stretch of time, but there was no showing of when he was last there and how often. “Velasco describes an intermittent overnight guest status, with no showing that he spent the night before (or even a night within the preceding week or month) the officer looked into the vehicle. Velasco has not cited to any authority establishing an intermittent overnight guest has standing to contest a search. See e.g. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 96 (1998) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring) (although overnight guest status may be at “the absolute limit of what text and tradition permit” under the Fourth Amendment, it is still within the limits of the Fourth Amendment).” United States v. Velasco, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120741 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2019).

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Def failed to show standing at the place where he intermittently spent nights but no showing of when

S.D.Ga.: Oral military search authorizations do not violate 4A or Rule 41

Oral search warrant requests and authorizations under M.R.E. 315 do not violate the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41. Many cases so hold. The violation of the SOP manual for military magistrates wasn’t serious enough to justify suppression nor prevent the good faith exception from applying. United States v. Caudle, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119139 (S.D. Ga. June 28, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119106 (S.D. Ga. July 17, 2019):
Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Military searches, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Oral military search authorizations do not violate 4A or Rule 41