Police went to do a knock-and-talk and nobody answered at the front door. Going to the back door, ostensibly as an extension of the knock-and-talk, violated curtilage under Jardines. What was seen went into a search warrant application, and it is suppressed. State v. Ellis, 2019 N.C. App. LEXIS 537 (June 18, 2019).
Defendant argued his due process rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated, but “there is no Fourth Amendment right to due process.” His traffic stop in a high-crime area resulted in officers seeing a gun under the seat. The search of the car was justified under the automobile exception or as a protective sweep for the gun. United States v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100691 (W.D.Ky. June 17, 2019) (The court erroneously refers to it as a “search incident” to an arrest with a protective sweep. It was valid under Michigan v. Long which is merely reasonable suspicion based. It was “incident” to a search, but that phrase should be avoided except where required.).
A court order doesn’t need to be titled “search warrant” to be considered one. The statute involved says a “search warrant” is required, but any court order issued on probable cause is valid. Whitlow v. Commonwealth, 2019 Ky. LEXIS 205 (June 14, 2019).
The court finds defendant consented to the search of his house. There also was justification for a protective sweep. United States v. Hernandez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100836 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2019).*
“Walker argues there was no evidence supporting the third Burton premise. We disagree, as several of the ‘factors that help establish the required nexus between a defendant’s drug-dealing activities and his home’ are present in this case. … Walker conducted the drug transactions in a car parked in the driveway behind 6735 Woodstock, ‘rendering his home a more likely repository of his drug-related paraphernalia.’ … He was seen leaving the house immediately before selling drugs to the informant, supporting the inference that the drugs were being stored there. Finally, the affidavit provides that Weaver, an officer with substantial experience and specialized training in narcotics investigations, believed that the residence was being used for the storage and distribution of drugs.” United States v. Walker, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18142 (3d Cir. June 17, 2019).
After defendant’s traffic stop, a search of the car’s interior was justified by his probation search waiver. United States v. Griffith, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99686 (W.D. Mo. June 14, 2019).*
Defendant was arrested in an open wooded area, and the protective sweep of a shed near him was valid. United States v. Flanagan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100047 (N.D. Ala. May 29, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99228 (N.D. Ala. June 13, 2019).
If there is probable cause, “the ‘automobile exception’ has no separate exigency requirement” under Maryland v. Dyson. United States v. Solis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99952 (D. Kan. June 14, 2019).*
CSLI obtained six months before Carpenter is subject to the good faith exception. United States v. Cooper, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98929 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2019).*
The Intercept: In Court, Facebook Blames Users for Destroying Their Own Right to Privacy by Sam Biddle:
But only months after Zuckerberg first outlined his ‘privacy-focused vision for social networking’ in a 3,000-word post on the social network he founded, his lawyers were explaining to a California judge that privacy on Facebook is nonexistent.
USA Today: California could become first to limit facial recognition technology; police aren’t happy by Marco della Cava:
State law enforcement officials here do not now employ the technology to scan those in the line of sight of officers. But some police officials oppose the bill on the grounds that a valuable tool could be lost.
Defendant claims his attorney was ineffective for failing to tell him about a possible motion to suppress, and, thus, he wouldn’t have pled guilty. The court, however, finds no facts anywhere in the case supporting even an inference there was a Fourth Amendment violation. Therefore, Strickland not met. Richardson v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98968 (S.D. Ind. June 13, 2019).*
Defendant’s 2254 COA request is denied. His primary claim is that his state adjudicated search claim was wrong, but Stone bars review of that. Quezada v. Raemisch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17713 (10th Cir. June 13, 2019).*
In answering a certified question from federal court, an “all due care standard” would grant qualified immunity under Iowa law. Baldwin v. City of Estherville, 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 78 (June 14, 2019).*
Defendant was the subject of a CSLI order issued without probable cause in 2016 to connect him to a murder. Carpenter was issued before he was sentenced and thus applies to his case. [Without even discussing the good faith exception exception,] The court finds the CSLI information harmless beyond reasonable doubt on the trial record. Motion for new trial denied. State v. Waters, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 283 (June 13, 2019).
DEA agents were surveilling defendants throughout the day. When they stopped their minivan, they had plenty of reason to know they were inside. United States v. Guzman, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17743 (8th Cir. June 13, 2019).*
The issuing magistrate properly issued a search warrant for text messages on defendant’s cell phone for a particular date and thereafter by inference. Prior to that particular date is suppressed for lack of probable cause. United States v. Bowen, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99200 (D. Ariz. June 12, 2019), adopting 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100150 (D. Ariz. April 16, 2019).
There is a statutory exclusionary rule on license suspensions if the officer makes a stop without jurisdiction. The court declines to extend it to any other situation where there is a problem with the stop. Westra v. Iowa DOT, 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 77 (June 15, 2019).*
Failure to leave a copy of the search warrant does not require suppression. There is no prejudice. United States v. Robinson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99902 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2019).
The CI was creditable because of admissions against interest and corroboration. The protective sweep prior to the warrant arriving was reasonable and resulted in no seizure. People v. Elder, 2019 NY Slip Op 04784, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4775 (3d Dept. June 13, 2019).*