CA3: Pretrial restrictions and order to appear are a seizure, adopting Justice Ginsburg’s Albright concurrence

A person under pretrial restrictions and ordered to appear (not merely summoned) is “seized” under the Fourth Amendment. The court adopts Justice Ginsberg’s Albright concurrence. Black v. Montgomery County, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15997 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off

D.Minn.: IP address used in P2P internet CP downloads linked to def’s one-family address was PC for SW for the computers in that house

IP address used in P2P internet child pornography downloads linked to defendant’s one-family address was probable cause for a search warrant for the computers in that house. United States v. Wylie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113669 (D.Minn. July 18, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112900 (D. Minn. Aug. 23, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Nexus | Comments Off

S.D.Ala.: That Alabama ABC officers didn’t state authority to make a traffic stop isn’t a 4A issue

Defendant was pulled over by state ABC officers. His claim that they lacked authority to do so under Alabama law doesn’t apply in federal court. That’s his only ground, so motion to suppress denied. United States v. Henry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111402 (S.D.Ala. Aug. 22, 2016).

Officers standing next to defendant’s car on a CVS parking lot could see jars of meth inside, and that was a plain view. United States v. Sullivan, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111465 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 22, 2016).*

Even if defendant didn’t have standing in the Hampton Inn hotel room he didn’t rent and was being evicted from for sex trafficking there, when one of his prostitutes came from another room into the hallway and gave more information, the officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances. United States v. Ford, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111249 (D.Ore. Aug. 22, 2016).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness | Comments Off

W.D.Pa.: Standards for credibility determinations

How the court makes credibility determinations, and these officers are credible. United States v. Brounson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112352 (N.D. Ga. May 23, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112278 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

WaPo: The Watch: For nine years, DEA withholds names of masked agents who violently raided two innocent women. Federal court shrugs

WaPo: The Watch: For nine years, DEA withholds names of masked agents who violently raided two innocent women. Federal court shrugs. by Radley Balko:

The Burley sisters say they were raided, roughed up and verbally abused, but because they can’t name the perpetrators, they won’t get a fair day in court.

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off

cato.org: The Weird World of Data (and Your Privacy)

cato.org: The Weird World of Data (and Your Privacy) by Jim Harper:

In 2007, Judge Richard Posner found it “untenable” that attaching a tracking device to a car is a seizure. But the Supreme Court struck down warrantless attachment of a GPS device to a car on that basis in 2012. Putting a tracking device on a car makes use of it without the owner’s permission, and it deprives the owner of the right to exclude others from the car.
Continue reading

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off

cato.org: ‘Pre-Search’ Is Coming to U.S. Policing

cato.org: ‘Pre-Search’ Is Coming to U.S. Policing by Jim Harper:

News that the city of Baltimore has been under surreptitious, mass-scale camera surveillance will have ramifications across the criminal justice world. When it comes to constitutional criminal procedure, privacy, and the Fourth Amendment, it’s time to get ready for the concept of “pre-search.” Like the PreCrime police unit in the 2002 movie Minority Report, which predicted who was going to conduct criminal acts, pre-search uses technology to conduct the better part of a constitutional search before law enforcement knows what it might search for.

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off

Seattle Times: FBI’s massive porn sting puts internet privacy in crossfire

Seattle Times: FBI’s massive porn sting puts internet privacy in crossfire by Mike Carter:

The FBI snared scores of people after taking over a child-pornography bulletin board and conducting a sting and computer-hacking operation. But there is a growing social and legal controversy over the bureau’s tactics and the impact on internet privacy.

Posted in Computer searches | Comments Off

W.D.Pa.: Momentary compliance with officer’s commands then flight is not a seizure

Momentary compliance with an officer’s commands is still not a seizure under Hodari D. when defendant flees after that. United States v. Brown, 448 F.3d 239, 246 (3d Cir. 2006)). United States v. Ridgeway, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111537 (M.D.Pa. Aug. 22, 2016).

Defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes, and his statement about the location of a gun was admissible under the “public safety” exception. United States v. Dominguez-Chaidez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111083 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 2, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110616 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 19, 2016).

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off

N.D.Cal.: Lessee of car had standing: “Her actions evinced a possessory interest in the vehicle and its contents”

“The Court finds Defendant had an expectation of privacy because she was the lessee of the rental car. … Although there is some dispute as to whether Defendant renounced control over the car, the Court finds that Defendant’s possessory interest in the car remained intact. Her actions evinced a possessory interest in the vehicle and its contents: she had access to the vehicle, placed items in the trunk, and demonstrated control and ownership over the property. The Court finds Defendant had a sufficient possessory interest over the vehicle’s contents to confer Fourth Amendment standing.” The search was valid under the automobile exception. United States v. Camacho, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109390 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 17, 2016).

Defendant’s car was illegally parked with the engine running, the door ajar, and the driver apparently asleep. It took a couple of minutes to rouse the driver and he said he was fine. Officers asked him out of the car and he was unsteady on his feet. He was arrested for DUI and the car was inventoried finding a gun, and defendant was a felon in possession. The stop for the parking violation was reasonable considering the driver might have been in need. State v. Eason, 2016-Ohio-5516, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 3393 (8th Dist. Aug. 25, 2016).*

Posted in Community caretaking function, Standing | Comments Off