WaPo: She installed a Ring camera in her children’s room for ‘peace of mind.’ A hacker accessed it and harassed her 8-year-old daughter. By Allyson Chiu (“Several Ring users nationwide have reported that their security systems were also infiltrated by hackers who harassed them through the camera’s two-way talk function.”)
Ring is owned by Amazon. Think of the potential liability.
This is a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. “The district court, upon a close analysis of the elements of the crimes alleged, determined that the facts proffered by Detective Brashears are insufficient to establish probable cause, or even arguable probable cause, to arrest the Pierces. Accordingly, the district court denied him qualified immunity on the Pierces’ constitutional claims. Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned order and affirm the denial of qualified immunity to Detective Brashears on the Pierces’ claim of malicious prosecution.” Pierce v. Clayton County, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36497 (11th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019).*
A furtive movement and a “conspicuously raised floormat” were reasonable suspicion. United States v. McGheeUnited States v. McGheeUnited States v. McGhee, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36505 (8th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019).*
The state showed a nexus to defendant’s cell phone and the crime under investigation because the participants were coordinating with each other before hand. “We have no evidence that the purpose of the cell phone call between the defendant, when he was arrested, and his girlfriend was to cover up the crime, as the Commonwealth contends. However, we need no such evidence. ‘[T]he fact that police did not know to a certainty that [the coventurer] was using his cellular telephone to communicate regarding the crime under investigation is not dispositive as to the question of nexus. Holley, 478 Mass. at 526-527.” Commonwealth v. Snow, 2019 Mass. App. LEXIS 172 (Dec. 10, 2019).
Wearing vests with “POLICE” on them and yelling at defendant “Police; stop!” was a seizure, and here it was completely without probable cause or reasonable suspicion even crediting every word of their testimony. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Sears, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212175 (D. N.J. Dec. 10, 2019).*
NBC News: The FBI’s warrant system for spying on Americans is a mess, the IG report shows by Ken Dilanian (“Analysis: The report found an FBI process so rife with errors that the bureau’s director immediately issued a statement saying he would begin reforms.”)
Reason: The FBI Will Be Audited to See How Frequently They Screw Up Other FISA Warrants by Scott Shackford (“Was what happened with Carter Page an anomaly or does the agency regularly leave out important information?”)
Vox: How to avoid a dystopian future of facial recognition in law enforcement y Shirin Ghaffary (“The future of police surveillance doesn’t have to be scary. But government and citizens need to step up.”)
Vox: What facial recognition steals from us by Josh Foss (“A video explainer on the technology that’s changing the meaning of the human face.”)
recode: What facial recognition steals from us by Joss Fong (“A video explainer on the technology that’s changing the meaning of the human face.”)
Creators.com: What’s Wrong with FISA? by Andrew P. Napolitano:
There was probable cause defendant was a major player in a DTO, and that his participation went on for months. This, he concedes, undermines his staleness argument. United States v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211403 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2019).*
A verdict for plaintiffs against a social worker for unreasonably ordering children taken from the parents is affirmed, as is the $499,000 attorneys fee. Lewis v. County of San Diego, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36421 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019).*
This search of a person on supervised release was with reasonable suspicion of a violation of terms of release as well as more specific information he might be armed. The search was reasonable on its justification and scope. United States v. Stigler, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211717 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 1, 2019).*
When officers came to the door with probable cause for the presence of marijuana, defendant’s shutting the door and moving about inside for up to 90 seconds created apprehension that he was destroying evidence. Also, there was at least reasonable suspicion someone else was inside for a protective sweep. United States v. Harris, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211633 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 9, 2019).
Defendant was a passenger in the car that was searched. He claimed an ownership interest in helping make payments, paying for maintenance, and having a key. He did not, however, have his name on the title. Without more corroboration from the registered owner, the court doesn’t credit him as having standing. United States v. Johnson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211503 (M.D. La. Dec. 9, 2019).*
Defendant allegedly had a motive to be violent, and, when officers asked him about whether he was armed, he dodged the question. The evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion for the intrusion. United States v. Farrington, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36384 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2019).
Defendant succeeds in reversing district court’s denial of 2255 on the grounds that he was misadvised as to the Guideline range and that a conditional plea here cost him acceptance of responsibility. He gets to re-enter an unconditional plea on remand if that’s his choice. Medina v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36370 (11th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019).*
“When Officer Hill entered Gates’s home, he held the reasonable belief that a violent domestic disturbance was ongoing, and that a woman was present in the residence and involved in the disturbance. This gave rise to a reasonable belief in a present emergency, justifying his warrantless entry. Once inside, Officer Hill held a warrant for Gates’s arrest. … Officer Hills’s search of Gates’s person, leading to the discovery the firearm, was appropriate under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224, 94 S. Ct. 467, 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1973) (‘It is well settled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.’).” United States v. Gates, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210993 (W.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2019).