The parties got into an argument, and plaintiff went back into his house. The defendant came in after him. “Without deciding whether Bailey’s arrest was supported by probable cause—or, as it goes in the qualified-immunity context, ‘arguable probable cause’—we reverse. Even assuming that Swindell had probable cause, he crossed what has been called a ‘firm’ and ‘bright’ constitutional line, and thereby violated the Fourth Amendment, when he stepped over the doorstep of Bailey’s parents’ home to make a warrantless arrest.” Bailey v. Swindell, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30787 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019).
A police officer off duty got into an argument over a personal matter and his firearm was discharged. It was not state action for § 1983. Morris v. City of Detroit, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30749 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019).*
The fact one officer swore to an affidavit prepared by another on the other’s knowledge is not a constitutional violation. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Parrish, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178155 (N.D. W.Va. Oct. 15, 2019).
Officers had probable cause to initiate the contact with defendant, and he consented to a search of his hotel room based on the fact that the credit card used to rent the room was counterfeit. Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not raising nonmeritorious grounds. Ntow v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178126 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 15, 2019).*
Defendant was arrested for another reason, and police did a search incident of his breath for DUI. That’s not a proper purpose. City of Vancouver v. Kaufman, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2616 (Oct. 15, 2019).
The search warrant appears based on probable cause, and defendant bears the burden of showing that it’s not, which she didn’t do. “For these reasons, Yang has failed to cast even minimal doubt on the warrant, and her Motion to Suppress is therefore denied.” United States v. Yang, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178209 (D.Colo. Oct. 8, 2019).*
A reasonable person in defendant’s position would believe he was seized, but there was reasonable suspicion for the encounter between defendant and the police. United States v. Mollohan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178206 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 15, 2019).*
Philadelphia Inquirer: As Philadelphia aims to curb racial disparities, why are police stops of black drivers skyrocketing? by Samantha Melamed (“Although Philadelphia police and civil rights lawyers have been monitoring pedestrian stops and frisks since 2011 — when they entered into a consent decree after a federal lawsuit over stark racial disparities — they have not studied vehicle stops as closely. (Among other reasons, they are more complicated to track than pedestrian stops, and usually some cause is listed for the initial stop — tinted windows, for instance.) This year, though, police data show a dramatic increase in vehicle stops. Through August, police had stopped more than 10,000 additional drivers each month compared with the first eight months of 2018.”)
NYTimes: Opinion: You’re in a Police Lineup, Right Now (“Face-recognition technology is the new norm. You may think, ‘I’ve got nothing to hide,’ but we all should be concerned.”).
Defendant’s offense was in 2005 and he was originally tried in 2011 and reversed that conviction. On retrial, he filed a motion to suppress a pen register used to locate him in Colorado. CSLI without a warrant was permitted in 2005, but here it dealt with realtime and future CSLI which was not at issue in Carpenter. The court approaches the issue as attenuation, and finds it. When defendant was located, he pulled a gun on the officers and then a search warrant was obtained that led to the evidence used here. The CSLI only helped find him. State v. Thomas, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 846 (Oct. 15, 2019).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search warrants for defendant’s electronic devices because there was probable cause for the warrants and he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address. “It can hardly be considered unreasonable for Otoupal’s lawyer to not pursue a course of action that would have failed. But even assuming counsel should have filed a motion to suppress, Otoupal’s objection fails because he cannot show prejudice.” Otoupal v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177838 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2019).*
“Defendant David Arnold was arrested for and charged with possession of a firearm by a felon after the Detroit police found a stolen handgun in the glovebox of the car he was driving. The police stopped the car because the temporary license tag was not legible. The government attempts to justify the warrantless search of the glovebox under the inventory search exception, but the timing of the events does not support that argument, and the police officers’ testimony on that score is not credible. Nonetheless, because the car would have been impounded and inventoried regardless of the illegal search, the inevitable discovery rule precludes application of the exclusionary rule to the fruits of the search. Therefore, the Court will deny Arnold’s motion to suppress the firearm. Also, because Arnold’s incriminating statements were obtained lawfully, the Court will deny the motion to suppress those as well.” United States v. Arnold, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177868 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2019).*
Defendant’s stop was unreasonably prolonged and violated Rodriguez. The product of that search was used to get a search warrant for the house. The search of the house is suppressed, too. United States v. Maffei, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177755 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019).*
Defendant’s motion to suppress should be denied on the merits because he fled from police, and he wasn’t seized until he laid down and submitted. Then he filed a motion to withdraw the motion and pled. Granted. United States v. Smith, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177720 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 18, 2019).*