MA: PC showing was close, but, essentially, ties go in support of the warrant

The trial court held that the affidavit for the search warrant did not show probable cause under Aguilar-Spinelli (still followed in Massachusetts), but the court of appeals disagrees and reverses. There were direct police observations that corroborated the informant’s story. It was a close case, but, on probable cause supporting a warrant, ties go to the police. Commonwealth v. Perez, 2016 Mass. App. LEXIS 154 (Oct. 21, 2016) (the baseball metaphor is mine, and used in the Treatise § 40.05 n.7):
Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off

OR: Bag of meth seen in car justified search incident

The officer here saw methamphetamine in a baggie in defendant’s car, and that justified a search incident for the “crime of arrest.” State v. Delfino, 281 Ore. App. 725 (Oct. 19, 2016).

The police came to defendant’s house with a search warrant for evidence of sex assault. His brother was put in charge of the house while he was in jail. The brother discovered an object sought in the warrant and called the police back. He had the requisite authority to consent to seizure of the item. People v. Lancaster, 2016 NY Slip Op 06904, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6761 (3d Dept. Oct. 20, 2016).

Posted in Consent, Search incident | Comments Off

NPR: Police Facial Recognition Databases Log About Half Of Americans

NPR: Police Facial Recognition Databases Log About Half Of Americans:

A new report from Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology says all it takes is a driver’s license to be included in the searchable databases. Rachel Martin talks to co-author Alvaro Bedoya.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off

NYTimes: Sunday Magazine: Feature: Should We See Everything a Cop Sees?

NYTimes: Sunday Magazine: Feature: Should We See Everything a Cop Sees? by Mackenzie Funk:

Body cameras have been promoted as a solution to police misconduct. But the strange two-year saga of Seattle shows just how complicated total transparency can be.

Posted in Body cameras | Comments Off

TX10: State showed exigency for warrantless blood draw by necessary delay

The state showed exigency for a warrantless blood draw. Defendant was in a crash, and the trooper (the only one in the county) arrived an hour after the wreck, and defendant was already at the hospital. After investigating the scene, the trooper went to the hospital. But then it was over two hours since the accident, and time was then off the essence. Cosino v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11431 (Tex. App. – Waco Oct. 19, 2016).

Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by defendant’s wife showing them files she’d opened on the family computer. Based on that view, they got a search warrant. Degeorgis v. State, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 571 (Oct. 20, 2016).*

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Private search | Comments Off

W.D.Mo.: Affidavit for SW did not mention CP but SW did; seizure of CP suppressed

Defendant was a suspect in identity theft and failure to register as a sex offender. The search warrant affidavit supported those offenses, but it also included child pornography yet no facts supporting a search for child pornography. Once in the house, officers plugged in a thumb drive with the program OS Triage to search for child pornography, and they went about the remainder of the search. After an hour they came back to the computer and an image of child pornography was on the screen with a red border. They shut down the computer to take it and get a warrant for child pornography. The discovery of the child pornography is suppressed because nothing in the affidavit supported searching for it. United States v. Dallman, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144487 (W.D.Mo. Oct. 12, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144488 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 19, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off

E.D.Pa.: Police may rely on NCIC report of existence of arrest warrant to make arrest

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the entry into defendant’s hotel room to arrest him because it would have failed on the merits. Officers had an NCIC report of a warrant on defendant and they knew he was at a hotel. An NCIC report had already been held sufficient proof of existence of an arrest warrant. They went to the room and attempted to use a ruse to get him to open the door. When that failed, they knocked and said they were the police. He opened the door and he was clearly the man wanted: 6’5″ and with a visible tattoo with “Vic.” United States v. Snard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145132 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 29, 2016).*

Defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion for speeding and loud music, so summary judgment was proper. Tapley v. Chambers, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18813 (7th Cir. Oct. 19, 2016).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off

S.D.N.Y.: Coming out of drug house also known for guns was RS

Defendant’s coming out of a drug house was reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk where it was known that drugs and guns had been seized there just a few months before. United States v. Williams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144231 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2016).

“The Court finds that all this activity was permitted as a welfare check. Deputy Brinson had arrived knowing only that there had been a man screaming and making death threats. This reasonably perceived emergency justified both Deputy Brinson’s questions to Defendant concerning other persons at the scene and her warrantless entrance into the residence to confirm the roommate’s safety, even assuming Defendant had not validly consented to the entry.” United States v. Guillen, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144145 (D.Nev. Oct. 17, 2016).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Stop and frisk | Comments Off

WaPo: Volokh Conspiracy: The Fifth Amendment and Touch ID

WaPo: Volokh Conspiracy: The Fifth Amendment and Touch ID by Orin Kerr:

My recent post on the legality of warrants that permit phone unlocking prompted some reader comments on how the Fifth Amendment might apply to using fingerprint readers such as Apple’s Touch ID. I think this is a hard issue, so it might be worth explaining my thinking in detail. Here are my current thoughts, with the caveat that my views aren’t completely settled and I may revisit them in the future.

Posted in Cell phones, Surveillance technology | Comments Off

E.D.Va.: Fact of a sex crime against a child does not, without more, mean there is CP on def’s computer

Mere evidence of forcible sodomy on a child does not ipso facto mean that there is probable cause to believe that there will be child pornography on the defendant’s computer, too. Only one circuit would make that inferential link (CA8), but not this one. Moreover, the utter lack of probable cause denies resort to the good faith exception. United States v. Church, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144422 (E.D.Va. Oct. 17, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off