New York Magazine: Are Trump’s Transition Team Lawyers Attempting to Discredit Mueller?

New York Magazine: Are Trump’s Transition Team Lawyers Attempting to Discredit Mueller? by Chas Danner

Well, duh! “To ask the question is to answer it.” Heald v. Rice, 104 U.S. 737, 755 (1892); In Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 581 (1895); Collins v. O’Neil, 214 U.S. 113, 122 (1909); Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630, 641 (1914); Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2011).

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

TN: Multiple mistakes on time of issuance of SW supported suppression under state law

Multiple typos on the time of issuance of the blood warrant (2044, 2244, 2244 pm, 2244 am) resulted in the trial court’s suppressing the warrant. The facts don’t preponderate against the findings of the trial court because the witnesses were inconsistent. The good faith exception won’t be applied. State v. Collier, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1036 (Dec. 15, 2017).

“Defendant did not preserve his claim that the search of his bag was not justified by exigent circumstances, and the hearing court did not expressly decide, in response to protest, the particular issue now raised on appeal.” People v. Perez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08722, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815 (1st Dept. Dec. 14, 2017).*

Posted in Warrant requirement | Comments Off

KY: Confrontation clause doesn’t apply in suppression hearings

The Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause doesn’t apply to a suppression hearing to get the typical CI on the stand to attack his reliability. [Now, if the CI was a material witness to the case under Roviaro, likely so.] Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 517 (Dec. 14, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Suppression hearings | Comments Off

Once again, Trump team lawyer doesn’t understand search warrant process (Part 2) | And the President undermines U.S. criminal justice to benefit all suspects

Once again, a Trump team lawyer doesn’t understand the Fourth Amendment. Saying the Fourth Amendment was violated doesn’t make it so. I hear this everyday from my own clients who are far less sophisticated about the law than Trump’s own lawyers. It’s like their legal education came from a “Law and Order” episode they once saw.

Trump’s lawyers show they don’t understand the criminal justice system. Either that, or they know exactly what they’re talking about and trying to delegitimize the Special Counsel’s investigation. In the normal criminal case, defense counsel watches the moves of the prosecution as the investigation progresses to learn from it and organize the defense. A criminal investigation should not be a PR exercise because it usually blows up in the defendant’s face, but that seems to be all that Trump’s lawyers are doing. That, and lying to the client about what’s really going on, as in “the investigation will end by the end of the year.”

Since Saturday afternoon, there’s been several articles about a letter to Congress about this purported Fourth Amendment violation and haven’t found the letter yet. But, if the news reports are accurate, and they are consistent in content, we don’t need to see the letter. If we get it, I’m sure it will just confirm what we know: The Trump team is in over its head.
Continue reading

Posted in E-mail | Comments Off

D.Colo.: Landowners consented to entries by BLM when leasing to oil and gas companies

The Court affirms the “Interior Board of Land Appeals’ finding that the Federal Oil and Gas Management Act authorizes Bureau of Land Management representatives to conduct warrantless, unannounced inspections of oil wells on Plaintiffs’ fee lands was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law.” The landowners effectively consented in their leases to the oil and gas companies. Maralex Resources, Inc. v. Jewell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205461 (D. Colo. Oct. 19, 2017) (see Treatise § 12.32):
Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Consent | Comments Off

NY3: Failure to search cell phone within the time limits on the warrant after timely seizure required suppression

Defendant’s cell phone was seized under a search warrant but the search did not occur for two months. The cell phone search violated state law because the search did not occur within the ten days required by the rule and the face of the warrant. [Whether it violated the Fourth Amendment isn't an issue.] People v. Kiah, 2017 NY Slip Op 08752, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8855 (3d Dept. Dec. 14, 2017).

Officer saw an apparent hand-to-hand transaction and approached defendant who then discarded something. That was abandonment. State v. Smith, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 2353 (La.App. 4 Cir. Dec. 13, 2017).*

Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel from not being told that he was waiving appeal of his denied suppression motion. He was told that in the plea colloquy, so the post-conviction petition is denied. State v. Boyer, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 647 (Dec. 8, 2017).*

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Warrant execution | Comments Off

IL: Def’s stop was without RS, and his flight didn’t add anything to the totality

The stop of the juvenile in this case was without reasonable suspicion and was designed to be a show of authority. The juvenile fled, and, under the totality of circumstances, the court can’t say that it added anything to the reasonable suspicion calculus because even Wardlow recognized flight can be innocent. In re D.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 171764, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 771 (Dec. 14, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

techdirt: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine.

techdirt: Cop Shuts Off Dashcam During Drug Dog Sniff. Appeals Court: This Is Fine. by Tim Cushing

Posted in Police misconduct | Comments Off

Law Review: Government Analysis of Shed DNA Is a Search under the Fourth Amendment

Government Analysis of Shed DNA Is a Search under the Fourth Amendment by Tracey Maclin, Boston Univeristy School of Law, 48 Texas Tech Law Review 287 (2015) (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2685766).

Abstract:
Continue reading

Posted in DNA, Search | Comments Off

IA: SW for taking blood includes testing it

The search warrant authorized taking defendant’s blood so it impliedly permitted testing it as well. The expectation of privacy is already reduced by the blood draw by authorization of law. State v. Frescoln, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 1227 (Dec. 6, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off