WaPo: The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy

WaPo: The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy by Brian Fung:
Continue reading

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off

ABAJ: Google vows to fight search warrant seeking the names of everyone who Googled crime victim

ABAJ: Google vows to fight search warrant seeking the names of everyone who Googled crime victim by Debra Cassens Weiss:

Google says it will fight a search warrant seeking information about anyone who searched the name of a financial crime victim on the search engine in December and early January.

Judge Gary Larson of Hennepin County, Minnesota, issued the warrant in February, report the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Ars Technica and TonyWebster.com, which was first to publicize the warrant.

Posted in Computer searches | Comments Off

CA3: 5A no bar to using All Writs Act and contempt power to order target to decrypt hard drive

The government can use the All Writs Act to get the target of a search to decrypt a hard drive because it does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Challenging the merits of the underlying order in a civil contempt isn’t the way to review it. Even using plain error review, the contempt order stands. The district court didn’t believe the defendant when he said he couldn’t remember the password when he’d recently accessed the hard drive. United States v. Apple MacPro Computer (Doe), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4874 (3d Cir. March 20, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches | Comments Off

Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule

Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule to a pre-Jardines dog sniff in a wide ranging and scholarly opinion surveying all the federal circuits on Davis and attenuation. McClintock v. State, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 291 (March 22, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off

D.Del.: Evasiveness during a public intox arrest justified Terry frisk

Defendant was arrested for public intox and he became evasive including a request that his name not be run for warrants. That justified a Terry frisk. United States v. King, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40213 (D. Del. March 21, 2017).*

Defendant’s moving papers inconclusively suggest he has standing in a detached garage next to his house that blew up and caught on fire. Defendant’s injuries led to his leg being amputated below the knee. The court wants a hearing on standing and whether the warrantless entry into the burned garage was reasonable. United States v. O’Neill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40138 (W.D. N.Y. March 3, 2017).*

The alleged inaccuracy in the affidavit of probable cause didn’t undermine it. United States v. Musto, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40862 (M.D. Pa. March 22, 2017).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off

E.D.Cal.: A stolen laptop from a prison medical provider wasn’t a “search”

A laptop of the medical provider was stolen, and plaintiff was told that his medical information may have been on it. He sued claiming a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This doesn’t state a claim. A stolen laptop is not a governmental search and seizure. Williams v. California Correctional Healthcare Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41556 (E.D. Cal. March 22, 2017).

The plaintiff “Program ‘is a privately funded program for troubled youths that provides a simple ranch life with the goal of helping troubled teenagers turn their lives around.’” After a motor vehicle accident, a resident died. The New Mexico State Police showed up and detained named plaintiffs for up to seven hours for questioning, allegedly without probable cause or a warrant. They stated a claim for relief under the Fourth Amendment. Tierra Blanca Ranch High Country Youth Program v. Gonzales, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40748 (D. N.M. March 20, 2017).*

Posted in Search, Seizure | Comments Off

M.D.Pa.: Being a drug dealer by trade doesn’t mean one’s house is subject to search; a bit more required

Being a drug dealer by trade doesn’t mean one’s house is subject to search. It is, however, an inference that can be drawn along with other facts. United States v. Couvertier, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40270 (M.D. Pa. March 21, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off

W.D.Okla: Def bears burden of proving “private search” was by government actor and did; suppressed

Defendant has sufficient interest in the business from which a thumb drive with data was taken and turned over to ICE officers at the U.S. Embassy in Panama. (The court acknowledges that it’s not “standing,” per se, but it continues to use the word.) On the question of private search, the court can’t find a Tenth Circuit case on it, but the Seventh and Ninth put it on defendant, so that’s what the court does. Then it finds that the defendant satisfied his burden of proof that the guy taking the thumb drive was a government actor because of government encouragement. [On the burden of proof, I disagree. See note at end.] United States v. King, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187174, 2015 WL 12852051 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2015):
Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Private search | Comments Off

WaPo: Who’s logging your face?

WaPo: Who’s logging your face? by Alvaro Bedoya:
You probably remember the day you got your driver’s license. You went to the department of motor vehicles, took a driving test, stood for a photograph and then got your license. What if you — and most other teens in the United States — were then asked to submit your fingerprints for criminal investigations by the FBI or state police?

It sounds absurd, even Orwellian. Yet, one by one, over the past 15 years, 29 states have done something similar with our faces: They have allowed police or the FBI to use face-recognition technology to scan and search drivers’ faces for investigations — much like they would the fingerprints of criminals. In this way, most American adults can find themselves in a criminal face-recognition network.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off

E.D.Tenn.: Defense counsel’s choice of questions during suppression hearing was a strategy choice

Defense counsel’s handling of the suppression hearing and the questions asked was within the strategy choices of counsel. And, even if defendant had a real point here, he can’t show he was prejudiced by anything that wasn’t put into evidence. Sanders v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39297 (E.D. Tenn. March 20, 2017).

Defense counsel didn’t challenge the seizure of defendant’s cell phone from a co-conspirator’s house during a raid. He could have concluded it was covered by the warrant, but it really doesn’t matter since no contents of the phone were used at trial; therefore, no prejudice. Winters v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39556 (N.D. Miss. March 17, 2017).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off