New York Magazine: Are Trump’s Transition Team Lawyers Attempting to Discredit Mueller? by Chas Danner
Well, duh! “To ask the question is to answer it.” Heald v. Rice, 104 U.S. 737, 755 (1892); In Re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 581 (1895); Collins v. O’Neil, 214 U.S. 113, 122 (1909); Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630, 641 (1914); Sykes v. United States, 564 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2011).
Multiple typos on the time of issuance of the blood warrant (2044, 2244, 2244 pm, 2244 am) resulted in the trial court’s suppressing the warrant. The facts don’t preponderate against the findings of the trial court because the witnesses were inconsistent. The good faith exception won’t be applied. State v. Collier, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1036 (Dec. 15, 2017).
“Defendant did not preserve his claim that the search of his bag was not justified by exigent circumstances, and the hearing court did not expressly decide, in response to protest, the particular issue now raised on appeal.” People v. Perez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08722, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8815 (1st Dept. Dec. 14, 2017).*
The Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause doesn’t apply to a suppression hearing to get the typical CI on the stand to attack his reliability. [Now, if the CI was a material witness to the case under Roviaro, likely so.] Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 2017 Ky. LEXIS 517 (Dec. 14, 2017):
Once again, a Trump team lawyer doesn’t understand the Fourth Amendment. Saying the Fourth Amendment was violated doesn’t make it so. I hear this everyday from my own clients who are far less sophisticated about the law than Trump’s own lawyers. It’s like their legal education came from a “Law and Order” episode they once saw.
Trump’s lawyers show they don’t understand the criminal justice system. Either that, or they know exactly what they’re talking about and trying to delegitimize the Special Counsel’s investigation. In the normal criminal case, defense counsel watches the moves of the prosecution as the investigation progresses to learn from it and organize the defense. A criminal investigation should not be a PR exercise because it usually blows up in the defendant’s face, but that seems to be all that Trump’s lawyers are doing. That, and lying to the client about what’s really going on, as in “the investigation will end by the end of the year.”
Since Saturday afternoon, there’s been several articles about a letter to Congress about this purported Fourth Amendment violation and haven’t found the letter yet. But, if the news reports are accurate, and they are consistent in content, we don’t need to see the letter. If we get it, I’m sure it will just confirm what we know: The Trump team is in over its head.
Defendant’s cell phone was seized under a search warrant but the search did not occur for two months. The cell phone search violated state law because the search did not occur within the ten days required by the rule and the face of the warrant. [Whether it violated the Fourth Amendment isn't an issue.] People v. Kiah, 2017 NY Slip Op 08752, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8855 (3d Dept. Dec. 14, 2017).
Officer saw an apparent hand-to-hand transaction and approached defendant who then discarded something. That was abandonment. State v. Smith, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 2353 (La.App. 4 Cir. Dec. 13, 2017).*
Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel from not being told that he was waiving appeal of his denied suppression motion. He was told that in the plea colloquy, so the post-conviction petition is denied. State v. Boyer, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 647 (Dec. 8, 2017).*
The stop of the juvenile in this case was without reasonable suspicion and was designed to be a show of authority. The juvenile fled, and, under the totality of circumstances, the court can’t say that it added anything to the reasonable suspicion calculus because even Wardlow recognized flight can be innocent. In re D.L., 2017 IL App (1st) 171764, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 771 (Dec. 14, 2017):
Government Analysis of Shed DNA Is a Search under the Fourth Amendment by Tracey Maclin, Boston Univeristy School of Law, 48 Texas Tech Law Review 287 (2015) (http://ssrn.com/abstract=2685766).
The search warrant authorized taking defendant’s blood so it impliedly permitted testing it as well. The expectation of privacy is already reduced by the blood draw by authorization of law. State v. Frescoln, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 1227 (Dec. 6, 2017):