Law.com: The Old Particularity in New Digital Raids by Peter A. Crusco
In his Cyber Crime column, Peter A. Crusco addresses the particularity requirement as it relates to digital evidence seized by search warrant, reviews some of the recent cases, and highlights possible trends.
Driving back to one’s house after a drug sale establishes nexus to the house. United States v. Rich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173634 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2017).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress defendant’s stop which was clearly reasonable for not having headlights on at night. State v. Menchu, 2017-Ohio-8252, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4624 (2d Dist. Oct. 20, 2017).*
Defendant’s car was going to be subjected to a dog sniff, and the handler wanted him out. The first officer directed defendant out of the car, which is reasonable in any traffic stop. At that point, a gun could be seen. State v. Benjamin, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 14900 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 20, 2017).
The officers here had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant’s express mail parcel. United States v. Zirkle, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173863 (S.D. W.Va. Oct. 20, 2017):
The seizure of defendant’s backpack for 20 days without seeking a search warrant was unreasonable. It infringed on defendant’s possessory interest, even though he did not seek return of the backpack. United States v. Uu, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170636 (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2017).
Officers had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop when defendant gave curious answers to questions. He said he just left a bar that the officers knew was closed and that he was driving between two towns but was 100 miles out of his way. He also had no license plate and was in an area known for smuggling. United States v. Milne, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171533 (D. N.M. Oct. 16, 2017).*
“One of the findings could be based only on testimony from the officer: ‘Although [defendant's girlfriend] had not expressly stated that [the officer] could come into the house, he interpreted her action as inviting him in.’ There is no testimony from either witness that supports the last phrase of this finding — that the officer interpreted the girlfriend’s action as an invitation to enter. The finding is clearly erroneous.” State v. Allis, 2017 VT 96, 2017 Vt. LEXIS 118 (Oct. 13, 2017).
Defendant’s stop was based on reasonable suspicion, and defendant’s argument seeks to impose a definition of reasonable suspicion that’s not the law in the Eighth Circuit. United States v. Schwarting, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170633 (D. S.D. Oct. 16, 2017).*
The showing of probable cause for defendant’s blood testing specified alcohol, but the warrant actually said alcohol or drugs could be tested for. This was not unreasonable considering defendant’s driving which was a part of the probable cause. Roberts v. State, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 610 (Oct. 17, 2017).
An officer on patrol saw a group of young men in Crips territory and a high crime area and recognized defendant as a member of the gang. He saw defendant walk behind a car and heard the sound of what he concluded was the dropping of a gun. That was reasonable suspicion to inquire further. United States v. Polite, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173242 (D. Neb. Sept. 20, 2017).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a contraband cell phone found in a jail. Riley provides no protection in a jail cell phone. State v. Kisack, 2017 La. LEXIS 2314 (Oct. 18, 2017).
A traffic stop was based on probable cause of a traffic offense, and then the officer smelled marijuana which gave probable cause to search the vehicle. Martin v. State, 2017 Miss. LEXIS 424 (Oct. 19, 2017).*
Officers had probable cause for a search of defendant’s vehicle based on observations of a controlled buy and detailed information from a CI. United States v. Morales, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172935 (D. S.D. Oct. 19, 2017).*