The certified question related to consent to search was not dispositive to the outcome of the case for purposes of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Even if defendant’s consent to search the home was constitutionally invalid and exigent circumstances did not exist, the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. Officers had probable cause to believe that an individual was inside defendant’s home, and the deputies could have obtained and executed a search warrant without defendant’s consent in order to search the home for the individual. Thus, the drug-related evidence would have been inevitably discovered. Since the certified question was not dispositive, the appeal was dismissed. State v. Scott, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 19 (Jan. 16, 2020).*
Decedent had a knife at his throat and officers fired beanbag rounds at him to get him to drop the knife. Instead he charged them. The use of deadly force was subject to qualified immunity. Estate of Gaona v. City of Santa MariaEstate of Gaona v. City of Santa MariaEstate of Gaona v. City of Santa Maria, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1453 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2020).*
In a federal death case, the court adopts the Sixth Circuit’s rejection of a USAO’s taint team handling and reviewing prison phone calls. United States v. Castro, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7435 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2020):
Defendant’s friend was involved in passing counterfeit $20 bills in a casino as viewed on video. They government, however, had no reasonable suspicion that defendant was actually involved in the scheme, so his frisk was unreasonable. Defendant’s frisk was investigatory and not for protection. United States v. Hartsell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7223 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 7, 2020).
The court finds that an illegal search led to calling a drug dog, so the detention and sniff became unreasonable. United States v. Bradley, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6876 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 13, 2020).*
The officer’s plain view of marijuana and paraphernalia in defendant’s car was reasonable suspicion for further detention. State v. Nolen, 2020-Ohio-118, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 98 (4th Dist. Jan. 8, 2020).*
A Franks violation can support a § 1983 claim. Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 919 (2017). Carter v. Bryant, 2020 S.C. App. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 15, 2020).
The arresting officers were entitled to qualified immunity on an excessive force claim because once the arrestee had ignored repeated warnings to drop his weapon, so they had ample reason to fear for their safety such that their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. Ratliff v. Aransas County, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1348 (5th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).*
The video supported the factual basis for the stop–that the exhaust was too loud. Plain view of drug paraphernalia in the car was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Blandford, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6898 (D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2020).*
The Sun (UK): Family sue TSA after man, 79, has $82K life savings he kept in tupperware box seized at airport for ‘no reason’ by Fionnuala O’Leary (“A FAMILY are suing the TSA after an elderly man’s $82K life savings stored in a Tupperware box were seized at a US airport for no apparent reason. Terrence Rolin, 79, from Pennsylvania and his daughter Rebecca Brown are lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed this week, after agents confiscated Rolin’s “suspicious” $82,373 in cash.”)
Reason: Family Sues DEA and TSA After Elderly Man’s Life Savings Were Seized at Airport
Plaintiff was arrested and in handcuffs in a police car for speeding. The officer searched her purse in the car, and all this was post-Gant and no evidence of speeding would be found in the purse. This was beyond mere negligence for state sovereign immunity. Cromartie v. Billings, 2020 Va. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 16, 2020).
“The motion to suppress Garcia-Zarate’s statements on the ground that his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment is denied. The police arrested Garcia-Zarate because three people who looked toward the scene after hearing the gunshot identified him as a possible shooter. The witnesses saw everyone running toward the victim, except for one man who was walking swiftly away. They found this behavior suspicious and reported the man to the police as a possible suspect. Two of the witnesses shared photographs they had taken. Within the hour, the police found a man who was in the right area, who was wearing the same clothing as the man the witnesses had identified, and who otherwise matched their descriptions. The police, without a warrant but acting on ‘the kind of fair probability on which reasonable and prudent people … act,” arrested Garcia-Zarate. Florida v. Harris, …. There was no Fourth Amendment violation.” United States v. Garcia-Zarate, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224806 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2019).* (This is the entire opinion.)
There is no constitutional requirement that the search warrant be served on the target of the search, so the missing attachment didn’t matter. “As stated above, the record demonstrates with reasonable certainty that a warrant stating with particularity the items to be seized, in compliance with the Fourth Amendment, existed when entrance was made to conduct the search of Leflore’s residence. Therefore, Leflore fails to demonstrate that the Fourth Amendment argument he now makes is meritorious. And as a consequence, he also fails to establish that his counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge the search of his residence on the grounds he now presents, or that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to do so. Leflore is entitled to no relief on this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Leflore v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7002 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 14, 2020).
“In any event, for reasons discussed below, reasonable jurists would agree that Price failed to show that counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge the search warrant, because Price has not identified any meritorious claim that counsel could have raised.” Price v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1416 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).*
Defendant wasn’t prejudiced by not calling his codefendant wife at the suppression hearing. Her declaration was already before the court, and nothing more could be added. What witnesses to call, even in a suppression hearing, is a Strickland strategic decision. Durante v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6865 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2020).
“Both warrants were based on detailed affidavits that clearly described the crimes in question, the places to be searched, and the items to be seized. … Accordingly, the evidence seized as a result of the warrants was admissible under the good faith exception, and we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Carpenter’s motion to suppress.” [It suggests there was probable cause anyway, but decides on good faith.] United States v. Bursey, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1350 (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2020).*
PR police were called to a DV situation involving a police officer as a suspect. The officer’s firearm did not factor into the DV complaint, and the argument wasn’t even face-to-face. The mere fact of a gun in the house did not justify an entry without some reasonable suspicion it would be used in a crime of violence. Remanded, however, for a determination of consent. United States v. Rodríguez-Pacheco, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1360 (1st Cir. Jan. 15, 2020):
Defendant lost his search issue on appeal. On 2255 he argues that it could have been argued better. [The opinion doesn’t say how.] It he lost on the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim, that’s binding on 2255 for lack of prejudice. CoA denied. Felix v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1292 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2020).*
2254 CoA denied. “Dunham’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant does not merit a COA. The state post-conviction court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, or make an unreasonable determination of the facts, by denying this claim, because the claim was conclusory, and the warrant itself shows that it specifically listed items related to the purpose of the warrant involving electronic evidence of child pornography.” Dunham v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1297 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2020).*
Defendant was observed doing four controlled buys, and he went back to his girlfriend’s house in her car each time. “Defendant contends that the affidavit lacked probable cause because it did not state who owned the Residence, whether Defendant lived at the Residence, or whether Defendant had a long-term connection to the Residence. Such statements are not required for an affidavit supporting a search warrant. The affidavit is not required to have direct evidence linking a crime to a particular place. See Zamudio, 909 F.3d at 175.” United States v. Douglas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6350 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2020).
Tribal officers are authorized to make arrests of non-Indians on tribal lands for criminal offenses. Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 697 (1990). State v. Thompson, 2020 Minn. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 15, 2020).
NYTimes: Does the F.B.I. Need Apple to Hack Into iPhones? By Jack Nicas (“There are tools to crack into the phones at the center of a new dispute over encryption. But the F.BI. says it still needs Apple’s aid.”)