Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a cell phone taken off a co-defendant that didn’t belong him. Besides, the search of that cell phone was valid. United States v. Brewer, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18003 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 2017).
Defendant contends that the officer misled the court on whether defendant consented to the search that the affidavit for search warrant was attempting to establish probable cause for. Since a search warrant presupposes no consent, removing the issue of consent from the affidavit still leaves probable cause for issuance of the warrant. State v. Bryan, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 930 (Sept. 19, 2017).
The Hill: iPhone’s facial recognition could lead to real life ‘Minority Report’ by Kimberly Wehle:
The iPhone X moves us closer to a world in which, by simply walking outside or picking up a personal iPhone, we will be monitored but have no idea of the extent.
FRT has been around for a while, so its privacy implications are not new. What is notable about Apple’s iPhone X is that it will catapult FRT into mainstream societal norms of everyday life.
The trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress couldn’t be considered on appeal because the record of the hearing was never filed for the appeal. State v. Tscheiner, 2017-Ohio-7641, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3962 (2d Dist. Sept. 15, 2017).
Defendant’s stop for speeding was unrebutted, and, thus, justified. United States v. Anderson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150465 (D.Ariz. Sept. 15, 2017).*
The trial court found that the stop was justified under the community caretaking function, but the supreme court finds that there was no “stop” and defendant was technically free to go. There were patrol cars on the side of the road and defendant stopped voluntarily. The officer subjectively intended to stop defendant, but defendant objectively stopped on his own. “Because no seizure occurred at the commencement of the encounter, it was not necessary to resort to the community caretaking exception. Although the lower courts began down the wrong path, they reached the correct result.” State v. Rivera, 297 Neb. 709, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 161 (Sept. 15, 2017).*
Officers heard gunshots and stopped the first person they saw. That essentially was a stop on a hunch and without reasonable suspicion. State v. Hairston, 2017-Ohio-7612, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3934 (10th Dist. Sept. 14, 2017).
“Here, the team of investigating agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency possessed collective knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the vehicle in which Defendants Solorio and Barron were traveling was carrying illegal drugs.” United States v. Solorio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150288 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2017).*
United States v. Cervantes, 859 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. June 19, 2017) (posted here) had a new opinion issued on rehearing, United States v. Cervantes, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18017 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2017), coming to the same result on the probation search issue.
Summary by the court:
Plaintiff’s dog escaped and ran down I-29 and cars were swerving dodging the dog. The defendant officer attempted to capture the dog but the dog eluded capture. With the patrol car in the road keeping cars back, traffic quickly backed up a quarter-mile. Finally, the officer shot the dog. Under the circumstances presented, the use of force against the dog was objectively reasonable. Hansen v. Black, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17986 (8th Cir. Sept. 18, 2017):
When an inmate has been booked into a jail and no judicial probable cause determination has been made, the Fourth Amendment governs the denial of medical care issue. Estate of Perry v. Wenzel, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18010 (7th Cir. Sept. 18, 2017):
The New York Times reports tonight that search warrants were used for the first time in a Special Counsel’s investigation: Not in Watergate, not in Iran-Contra, not in Whitewater, not in the Valerie Plame investigations. With a Picked Lock and a Threatened Indictment, Mueller’s Inquiry Sets a Tone by Sharon Lafraniere, Matt Apuzzo & Adam Goldman. The others didn’t because they used grand jury subpoenas, and, in Kenneth Starr’s case, he blatantly violated F.R.Crim.P. 6 by putting the grand jury transcripts online. They could have used search warrants if they had probable cause. Why use grand jury subpoenas that take so long? In Whitewater, they had all the records. There was nothing to get a search warrant for. Apparently in none of the others, either.