E.D.Va.: There is no higher nexus requirement involving cell phone data and tracking

There is no higher nexus requirement involving cell phones. A ping order of a cell phone may be used to collect “mere evidence,” rejecting United States v. Powell, 943 F. Supp. 2d 759 (E.D. Mich. 2013). United States v. Christian, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80251 (E.D.Va. May 24, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, GPS / Tracking Data, Nexus | Comments Off

LA2: UT blanket probation search condition applied to probationer transferred to LA

Defendant was on probation out of Utah and supervised in Louisiana. His PO received information that he might have child pornography on his cell phone. During a PO visit, he was told to get his cell phone and computer out of his vehicle, and he did. He’d signed a blanket search waiver in Utah and that applied in Louisiana. State v. Haley, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 942 (La.App. 2 Cir. May 24, 2017).

The named CI was corroborated by the independent observation and work of the officer leading up to a drug transaction. There was probable cause, especially when defendant discarded the drugs. State v. Williams, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 956 (La.App. 3 Cir. May 24, 2017).*

Posted in Conflict of laws, Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off

OH6: Merely being “associated” with a vehicle doesn’t confer standing

“In his motion to suppress, he asserted only that he was ‘associated’ with the truck. We find an ‘association’ with the vehicle gives no greater rights than a mere passenger. Therefore, we agree with the state that appellant could not assert his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search of the truck.” State v. Tilman, 2017-Ohio-2908, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1948 (6th Dist. May 19, 2017).

The trial court’s findings that the officer could not have seen what he claimed to have seen is not supported by the record, and the grant of the motion to suppress is reversed. State v. Essad, 2017-Ohio-2913, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1945 (9th Dist. May 22, 2017).*

Posted in Standards of review, Standing | Comments Off

IN: Stop was reasonably extended because the LPN didn’t match vehicle

A stop was reasonably extended by the officer because the LPN didn’t come back to the vehicle. Browder v. State, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 212 (May 22, 2017).*

The affidavit for search warrant was not bare bones, and the search warrant was issued with probable cause. A car parked on and relating to the premises could be searched under the warrant even though not mentioned in the warrant. United States v. Ortega, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188768 (W.D. Tex. April 13, 2015).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off

Two car and person searches suppressed for lack of RS

The USMJ “reasonably determined that although there was probable cause to stop the car in which Linaman was traveling for possible traffic violations, …, Deputy Tadlock prolonged the stop beyond the time reasonably required to investigate those violations and without reasonable suspicion of unrelated criminal activity and, thus, exceeded the constitutional limitations on such stops.” Neither party objected, and the motion to suppress the 20 lbs of methamphetamine in defendant’s backpack is granted. United States v. Linaman, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77238 (N.D. Iowa May 22, 2017).*

The driver of the vehicle had a suspended DL. The officer got both the driver and passenger out and frisked them both without inquiring into whether the passenger could drive the car. There was no reasonable suspicion for the frisk and the searches are suppressed. United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78035 (D. Md. May 22, 2017).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off

CA9: PC for arrest in the 1A context: ptf street performer’s arrest was without probable cause

Plaintiff is a Las Vegas Strip street performer, and she was arrested for conducting business with another performer without a license. The district court erred by deciding that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff despite the First Amendment protections afforded to her expressive association. The full First Amendment protections accorded plaintiff’s own activities did not lapse because of what the other performer said or did without plaintiff’s direct participation. Rather, plaintiff’s and the other performer’s expressive association could not be the sole basis relied upon to attribute the other performer’s actions to plaintiff. To infer from their shared costumes and joint performance alone that there was an agreement to engage in a regulable transaction impermissibly burdened the right to engage in purely expressive activity and association. Santopietro v. Howell, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028 (9th Cir. May 24, 2017).

Posted in Probable cause, § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off

CA4: Wikimedia can show standing to challenge internet surveillance under Clapper v. Amesty International

Wikimedia’s complaint against the NSA survives SCOTUS Clapper v. Amnesty International standing analysis. Wikimedia handles over one trillion internet communications a year, and every internet portal in the U.S. and likely the world reaches it. Therefore, some communications have to have been captured. The other complainants’ standing, however, are speculative under Clapper. Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA/Central Security Service, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8957 (4th Cir. May 23, 2017).

Motion to excluded 404(b) evidence after jury was selected was a thinly veiled motion to suppress that wasn’t remotely timely. United States v. Quinones-Davila, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77605 (D.V.I. May 22, 2017).*

Posted in Standing, § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off

NYLJ: Federal Jury Awards $8M to Man Injured by Police Stun Gun

NYLJ: Federal Jury Awards $8M to Man Injured by Police Stun Gun by Jason Grant:

A federal jury has awarded a mentally disabled Long Island man and his parents $8.32 million after police used a stun gun on the man four times inside his home in 2010.

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off

WaPo: ‘The Volokh Conspiracy’ Blog: United States v. Wallace is a GPS case, not a cell-site case – here’s why it matters

WaPo: ‘The Volokh Conspiracy’ Blog: United States v. Wallace is a GPS case, not a cell-site case — here’s why it matters by Orin Kerr:

Yesterday I wrote at length on United States v. Wallace, a new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that obtaining E911 location information from a cellphone is not a search. In this post, I will argue that the 5th Circuit’s reasoning can’t work because it rests on a misunderstanding of the record.

Posted in Cell site location information, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off

Law.com: Fourth Amendment Exception Allows Customs to Search Personal Devices

Law.com: Fourth Amendment Exception Allows Customs to Search Personal Devices by Joe Martini & James Glasser:

CBP agents can search cellphones, laptops and other electronic devices of those entering or leaving the country, regardless of citizenship and despite the vast quantities of extremely personal information stored on those devices. And CBP agents are searching more devices now than ever.

Posted in Border search | Comments Off