VA: RS not required for a jail book-in strip search

Reasonable suspicion is not required for a jail book-in strip search. Defendant was arrested for a drug offense, and he was freely moving around in book-in, but a search ultimately happened, and a baggie of cocaine was protruding from his rectum. Cole v. Commonwealth, 2017 Va. LEXIS 162 (Nov. 16, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Special needs | Comments Off

CA11: Failure to object to R&R was waiver of search issue

Defendant didn’t object to the magistrate’s R&R. The stop was found valid in the district court for having a tag light out and then consenting to a search. United States v. Jackson, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23048 (11th Cir. Nov. 16, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Marshall Project: A ‘Routine’ Stop Almost Ended My Career Before It Started

The Marshall Project: A ‘Routine’ Stop Almost Ended My Career Before It Started by Johnathan S. Perkins:

Sometimes there’s danger in speaking out against perceived police misconduct.

Posted in Police misconduct | Comments Off

MT: Element of offense that other state’s offense be similar to MT’s doesn’t have to be proved for PC

The affidavit for a telephonic search warrant included that defendant had been convicted of DUI under another state’s law didn’t have to also meet the statutory requirement that the other state’s offense was “similar” to Montana’s. That was an issue for trial. City of Missoula v. Williams, 2017 MT 282, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 680 (Nov. 17, 2017).

On the totality, defendant’s consent was voluntary. People v. Fioretti, 2017 NY Slip Op 08133, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8182 (4th Dept. Nov. 17, 2017).*

Posted in Consent, Probable cause | Comments Off

CA3: Pointed a gun at ptf during arrest and making him lie on the ground is not excessive force

“Krasley is alleged to have pointed a gun at Pearson and required him to lie on the ground, but the charge of promoting prostitution was serious, Pearson was in a vehicle and thus could have fled, and Pearson was uninjured. There is thus no plausible claim that the force used by Krasley in effecting Pearson’s arrest was excessive.” The seizure of plaintiff’s cell phones were also reasonable. Pearson v. Krasley, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22912 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off

CA10: Jury instruction that search issue was for the court and not the jury didn’t lessen the govt’s burden of proof

Defendant’s challenge to the investigative techniques in this child rape case led the district court to instruct the jury that the propriety of searches and seizures were questions for the court. The defense objected that the instruction lessened the government’s burden, but it did not. United States v. Jenks, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23033 (10th Cir. Nov. 16, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off

NY, Kings Co.: Use of a Stingray violates defendant’s REP in his cell phone

Use of a Stingray violates defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone. It cannot be compared at all to a pen register. People v. Gordon, 2017 NY Slip Op 27364, 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4285 (Kings Co. Nov. 3, 2017):
Continue reading

Posted in Stingray / Hailstorm | Comments Off

OH12: Def’s petition for discretionary review dismissed for failure to file briefs leaves appellate result intact

The trial court suppressed but the court of appeals reversed. The supreme court granted discretionary review, but it was dismissed for defendant’s failure to file a brief. The case was remanded back to the trial court, and the appellate reversal was law of the case where discretionary review was dismissed. State v. Clayton, 2017-Ohio-8538, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4951 (12th Dist. Nov. 13, 2017).

Investigating a burglary, the officer found the defendant with a baggie of marijuana sticking out of his pocket. That was a valid plain view. State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-8558, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4968 (1st Dist. Nov. 15, 2017).*

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off

TX13: Search incident can occur before formal arrest as long as both are justified

Search incident can occur before formal arrest as long as both are justified. Hill v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10749 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg, Nov. 16, 2017) (memorandum).*

Appellant’s claims that VA attorneys hacked her computer in violation of the Fourth Amendment wasn’t within the VA court’s jurisdiction. Melvin v. Shulkin, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22639 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2017).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Search incident | Comments Off

CA9: Long protective weapons search wasn’t justified by RS weapons could be found

“Although Officers Ellis and Prince may have reasonably believed that Perryman and his cousin, Anthony Perryman (“Anthony”), were dangerous, the evidence does not support the district court’s conclusion that the officers reasonably believed that Perryman or Anthony would gain immediate control of weapons in the car. Before the search, the officers secured Perryman and Anthony, handcuffed them, and placed Perryman in a patrol car and Anthony by the curb. There was thus no immediate risk that Perryman or Anthony would gain control of weapons at the time the search was conducted. [¶] Any risk that Perryman and Anthony would return to the car and gain immediate access to weapons is contingent on facts that did not exist at the time of the search.” United States v. Perryman, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23085 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2017).

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off