CA5: Pre-Jardines dog sniff at garage was valid at time under case law; GFE applies

The good faith exception applied to validate dog sniffs based on law at the time saying that a sniff at defendant’s garage wasn’t an invasion of the curtilage back then. The search was 2008 and Jardines was 2013. The deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule do not remotely apply. United States v. Holley, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13697 (5th Cir. July 27, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Good faith exception | Comments Off

W.D.Mo.: Officers’ own observations corroborated CI’s

There clearly was probable cause drugs, money, and firearms would be found at the place searched. “The affidavit provided the statements of a confidential source who specifically described drug trafficking activities there. These statements included the CS’s very recent eyewitness observation of drugs, drug trafficking equipment, weapons, and large sums of US currency inside the premises. The affidavit also included the detectives’ own [recent] eyewitness observations …, of four apparent drug transactions relating to 7200 Virginia.” United States v. Brown, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95888 (E.D.Mo. July 8, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95782 (W.D. Mo. July 22, 2016).*

Applying the fifth factors of consent in this circuit, defendant clearly consented to entry into his house and talking to him. United States v. Waguespack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96874 (S.D.Cal. July 22, 2016).*

Posted in Consent, Informant hearsay | Comments Off

W.D.Tenn.: Apt complex private security detained and searched def for trespass, and it was a private search

Defendant was in a friend’s apartment smoking pot when the complex’s security guards came to a noise complaint. Defendant was on a no-trespassing list and he was handcuffed and searched. Defendant had no standing in the pot in the apartment. He did have standing to challenge the search of his own person, but the court finds that the security guards were acting entirely on their own and not as agents of the state. “Additionally, there is no evidence that Boyd detained and searched Williams with the intent of assisting law enforcement officers in their investigative efforts.” United States v. Williams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97365 (W.D.Tenn. June 24, 2016).*

Defendant’s shotgun was protruding from his backpack. It was obvious, and it wasn’t an inventory to find it. United States v. Castaneda, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95896 (D.Ariz. July 22, 2016).*

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Private search | Comments Off

N.D.Ohio: Nexus to house shown by controlled buys

“[T]he affidavit only needs to show a ‘nexus’ between the place to be searched and the evidence sought. [¶] A common-sense reading of the affidavit leads to the conclusion that there is a nexus between the residence and the evidence of ‘any illegal narcotics and drug paraphernalia.’” Two controlled buys provided that. United States v. Davison, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96553 (N.D.Ohio July 25, 2016).*

Yet again, and for the upteenth time, the Court of Federal Claims holds that the Fourth Amendment is not a “money mandating” provision, and it thus lacks jurisdiction. Johnson v. United States, 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1021 (July 26, 2016).*

Posted in Nexus | Comments Off

E.D.Cal.: Dashcam video showed officer slow walked the citation to add time for the drug dog; no RS for the delay

It was apparent from the video that the officer slow walked the citation to give more time to the drug dog to get there and do its job. Selective muting of the audio at the time by the officer also adds to the court’s suspicion of the entire process. United States v. Cornejo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96229 (E.D.Cal. July 21, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

New American: New Illinois Law Nullifies Expansion of Surveillance State

New American: New Illinois Law Nullifies Expansion of Surveillance State by Joe Wolverton, II:

A new law in Illinois works to protect citizens of that state from being subjected to electronic surveillance that violates their right to be free from unreasonable searches on the part of government. The statute also serves to restrict the capacity of the federal government to extend the borders of the federal surveillance state within the sovereign borders of Illinois.

Governor Bruce Rauner signed the bill outlawing the use of “Stingray” tracking devices used to monitor and record the location of phones and record critical electronic data of cellphone users, all of which is typically done without a warrant, in direct violation of the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The Act is here.

Posted in Stingray / Hailstorm, Surveillance technology | Comments Off

E.D.Tex.: No REP in a cell phone call made in back of patrol car caught on dashcam

Defendant’s stop was valid, and so was the ultimate inventory of the car under Bertine. Defendant was in the back of a police car, and he called his grandfather and the audio was picked up on the dashcam video where he admitted to a gun in the car. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backseat of the car. United States v. Gladstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95243 (E.D.Tex. June 29, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94724 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off

MO: Where there’s PC to believe evidence is in a vehicle, it may be seized to remove it for search

When there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains criminal evidence, exigent circumstances can support its seizure pending determination whether to search it under the automobile exception or to remove it to a secure location for search. State v. Mays, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 718 (July 26, 2016):
Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off

D.Ore.: No territorial limitation for SW to Facebook under § 2703

“The territorial limitation in Rule 41 … does not limit warrants issued pursuant to [18 U.S.C.] § 2703.” A search warrant for Facebook in another jurisdiction was valid. United States v. Bundy, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94476 (D.Ore. July 20, 2016).

Officers had information that a particular car was coming into a neighborhood to “shoot up” a house. When the car arrived, it was stopped, and everybody was removed. The officers had probable cause under the automobile exception for a search for a weapon. United States v. Shackleford, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13634 (8th Cir. July 27, 2016).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Computer searches, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off

E.D.N.C.: Losing sight of the def for a few minutes didn’t dissipate the RS

The officer had reasonable suspicion on the totality, and it doesn’t dissipate just because the officer lost sight of defendant for a little while. United States v. Williams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94514 (E.D.N.C. June 2, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93952 (E.D.N.C. July 19, 2016).*

Defendant repeatedly hitting the fog line and the rumble strip was justification for a stop. United States v. Copley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93459 (W.D.Ky. July 18, 2016).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off