WaPo: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections | Money more important than privacy

WaPo: The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections by Brian Fung:

House Republicans voted overwhelmingly Tuesday, by a margin of 215-205, to repeal a set of landmark privacy protections for Web users, issuing a sweeping rebuke of Internet policies enacted under the Obama administration. It also marks a sharp, partisan pivot toward letting Internet providers collect and sell their customers’ Web browsing history, location information, health data and other personal details.
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

UT: Defense “counsel was [not] ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress based on an unresolved proposition of law.”

“We cannot conclude that Edgar’s trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress based on an unresolved proposition of law.” State v. Edgar, 2017 UT App 53, 2017 Utah App. LEXIS 53 (March 23, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

CA6: Allegation of falsely creating PC is different than absolute immunity for GJ testimony

An allegation of falsely creating a case against the plaintiff is independent from the absolutely immune conduct of grand jury testimony. The district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. Supplement jurisdiction claims dismissed also reversed. King v. Harwood, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5264 (6th Cir. March 27, 2017).

Defendant’s motion to reconsider wasn’t timely because he waited way more than 14 days to ask for it while the government said it was going to do an interlocutory appeal. “Even if this court were to overlook the untimeliness of the Motion, however, defense counsel has failed to provide a valid basis for reconsideration.” United States v. Bohannon, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44113 (D. Conn. March 27, 2017).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off

CA8: RS too fact bound to lend itself to overcoming QI defense in § 1983 case

Plaintiff suppressed his search in state court for lack of reasonable suspicion, but he can’t get over the qualified immunity hurdle to sue the officer for the detention. The reasonable suspicion was thin at best, and, instead of nervousness, the defendant was calm. Too calm for the officer. When defendant didn’t consent, he called for a drug dog. The cases don’t have enough of a pattern for a fact bound situation like this to show the officer should be denied qualified immunity. De La Rosa v. White, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5273 (8th Cir. March 27, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

W.D.Va.: Two emails showed PC to believe two email accounts would have evidence of money laundering

The facts before the USMJ, based on two emails, showed probable cause to believe that defendant’s two email accounts would have further evidence of money laundering. United States v. Bradley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43719 (W.D. Va. March 24, 2017).

A video of the execution of a search warrant from 1987 was available to the defense all along, so he gets no equitable tolling of filing a recent coram nobis petition based solely on the prosecutor’s misstatement on the record at trial that the video started in a different place than it did. Cauthern v. State, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 223 (March 24, 2017).*

Posted in E-mail | Comments Off

M.D.Pa.: Knocking and getting no answer is not exigency

The entry into defendant’s house on probable cause but without an arrest warrant was unreasonable. The officers claimed exigency from the fact they announced and nobody answered. After the entry, the police went to defendant’s wife and told her of the entry and then asked her for consent to search, and that search revealed evidence not found before. The government proved attenuation from the illegal search and a later statement. United States v. Sanchez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43631 (M.D. Pa. March 24, 2017).

The change in the law about GPS installation doesn’t entitle a 2255 petitioner to relief or show IAC. Curbelo v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44188 (M.D. Fla. March 27, 2017).*

Posted in Emergency / exigency | Comments Off

OR: Officer’s flashlight in the eyes at night a factor in “show of authority” for a seizure

“Additionally, there is an unresolved factual issue about how the police officers used their flashlights. If an officer uses a flashlight to block a person’s view, and thereby hinders his or her ability to leave an encounter, it could contribute to a conclusion that the officer engaged in a show of authority because a reasonable person might feel that he or she is not free to terminate the encounter.” State v. Washington, 284 Ore. App. 454, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 387 (March 22, 2017).

Defendant’s stop ripened into reasonable suspicion when he didn’t know where his passengers were traveling, his story started changing, and his nervousness became more apparent. United States v. Avalos, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39565 (D. Neb. March 20, 2017).*

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off

D.Me.: Attic is part of the premises for consent or a SW

The attic is a part of the premises, and it’s part of a consent to search a house. The First Circuit already held that a search warrant for a house includes the attic. United States v. Gardiner, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41235 (D. Me. March 22, 2017).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress evidence first taken from trash bags outside his property and then again by consent. United States v. Smith, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42049 (E.D. Pa. March 23, 2017).*

Posted in Scope of search | Comments Off

CA6: Court details all the facts that make consent to search a cell phone voluntary

Defendant’s consent to search his cell phone for child pornography was voluntary. A host of facts support voluntariness. United States v. Mays, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5246 (6th Cir. March 23, 2017)*:
Continue reading

Posted in Consent | Comments Off

KS: State is bound by prior suppression ruling when it dismisses and refiles

The evidence was suppressed, and the state appealed and it was affirmed. They dismissed and refiled later. The prior ruling was “law of the case,” and the state is bound by it. State v. Parry, 2017 Kan. LEXIS 116 (March 24, 2017) (see Treatise § 60.54):
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off