Author Archives: Hall

D.Nev.: In a § 242 prosecution, defense expert can’t testify to PC

In a § 242 prosecution for violating civil rights, the defense proposed expert is barred from opinion on whether probable cause existed for the arrest. “Whether a given set of facts constitutes probable cause to arrest or charge for a … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Issue preclusion, Pretext, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Nev.: In a § 242 prosecution, defense expert can’t testify to PC

CA10: Gant permits search for DL in car when def fails to identify himself

Gant search incident permits a search for a driver’s real driver’s license in a car when he fails to properly identify himself. United States v. Pinder, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29995 (10th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024). Complaining generally about a … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Search incident | Comments Off on CA10: Gant permits search for DL in car when def fails to identify himself

D.Or.: Taking iPhone 6 apart and putting new firmware to make it work wasn’t a “search” for information

Taking an iPhone 6 apart, putting it back together, and installing new firmware to make it work was not a “search” because that process was not to obtain information. [Well, that was the ultimate goal, wasn’t it?] United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on D.Or.: Taking iPhone 6 apart and putting new firmware to make it work wasn’t a “search” for information

CA8: Pro se def’s standby counsel not ineffective at suppression hearing; not counsel’s role

Defendant chose to go pro se at the suppression hearing, grudgingly accepting standby counsel. After the motion to suppress was denied, he claimed ineffective assistance by standby counsel for not doing more. But that’s not standby counsel’s role. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA8: Pro se def’s standby counsel not ineffective at suppression hearing; not counsel’s role

WY: Courthouse entry search valid under “special needs”

Defendant entered a courthouse, and the metal detector went off on a small can on him which he opened on request revealing meth. These searches are valid as “special needs.” Russell v. State, 2024 WY 126, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 128 … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Special needs | Comments Off on WY: Courthouse entry search valid under “special needs”

OH12: Stop for riding bicycle in center of road led to RS for frisk

Defendant’s stop was for riding a bicycle in the center of the road, but when finally stopped, he had a large sheathed knife on him, and that justified a frisk. State v. Hayes, 2024-Ohio-5545 (12th Dist. Nov. 25, 2024).* “Defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on OH12: Stop for riding bicycle in center of road led to RS for frisk

TX1: GPS installed by dealer in a used car was owned by dealer and was not comparable to CSLI

Defendant bought a used car that the dealer had GPS installed in if necessary to recover it. The police accessed that information without a warrant to connect him to a murder. The contract for the vehicle told defendant about the … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, GPS / Tracking Data, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on TX1: GPS installed by dealer in a used car was owned by dealer and was not comparable to CSLI

D.Mass.: Gun suppressed in FIPF case still not excludable in violation of supervised release

Defendant was an alleged felon in possession and was charged with a new federal crime and a violation of his supervised release. He was sentenced to 22 months on the violation. The gun was suppressed in the new gun case … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Voluntariness | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Gun suppressed in FIPF case still not excludable in violation of supervised release

OH12: No reason why a federal search warrant can’t result in a state prosecution

A federal search warrant produced the drugs in question, and they were not inadmissible for that reason in a state prosecution. State v. Hana, 2024-Ohio-5548, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 4234 (12th Dist. Nov. 25, 2024). The trial court found that … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Private search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on OH12: No reason why a federal search warrant can’t result in a state prosecution

CA6: Defense counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Carpenter three years early

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not forecasting Carpenter years before it was decided. Cooper v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29853 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024).* Defendant was on parole for a child exploitation offense, and he was polygraphed … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA6: Defense counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Carpenter three years early

CA2: No less intrusive measures requirement before seeking CSLI

“The CSLI and cell-site simulator warrants provided evidence of the general and specific location of one of Brown’s cell phones and, therefore, of Brown’s likely movements between his indictment and arrest. Brown contends that investigators procured these warrants by falsely … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA2: No less intrusive measures requirement before seeking CSLI

Salon: “It is a weapon”: Ronan Farrow discusses the spyware in our pockets in “Surveilled”

Salon: “It is a weapon”: Ronan Farrow discusses the spyware in our pockets in “Surveilled” by Gary M. Kramer (“You never know [spyware] was there. It copies everything on your phone and it leaves” … “The cogent documentary, ‘Surveilled,’ now … Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Salon: “It is a weapon”: Ronan Farrow discusses the spyware in our pockets in “Surveilled”

techdirt: Two Missouri Cops Are Facing Criminal Charges For Helping Themselves To Nude Photos Found On Drivers’ Phones

techdirt: Two Missouri Cops Are Facing Criminal Charges For Helping Themselves To Nude Photos Found On Drivers’ Phones by Tim Cushing, updating this post from 11/15

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on techdirt: Two Missouri Cops Are Facing Criminal Charges For Helping Themselves To Nude Photos Found On Drivers’ Phones

For originalists, is using the military to conduct arrests and detentions in the U.S. a “reasonable search and seizure”?

Reuters: Republican Rand Paul opposes Trump talk of using military in deportations by Bo Erickson (“A 19th century U.S. law prohibits federal troops from being used in domestic law enforcement except when authorized by Congress. [¶] Paul, at times a … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on For originalists, is using the military to conduct arrests and detentions in the U.S. a “reasonable search and seizure”?

CA10: “Bivens is now all but dead.”

“Bivens is now all but dead.” Rowland v. Matevousian, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29406 (10th Cir. Nov. 19, 2024). But we already knew that. Not a Fourth Amendment case, but a prison denial of medical care, but that’s where Bivens … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA10: “Bivens is now all but dead.”

IN: Handswabbing for evidence doesn’t require advice of rights under state constitution

Handswabbing didn’t require advice of Pirtle rights under Indiana Constitution. DNA swabs don’t. Owens v. State, 2024 Ind. App. LEXIS 316 (Nov. 20, 2024).* The false statements in the affidavit for warrant were neither reckless nor intentional nor even material. … Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, State constitution | Comments Off on IN: Handswabbing for evidence doesn’t require advice of rights under state constitution

D.Me.: State mandated GPS tracking of lobster boats reasonable under closely regulated business exception

Under the closely regulated business exception, the State of Maine can require lobsterman to have GPS tracking on their boats. (It’s an important question and the plaintiffs are urged to appeal to the First Circuit.) Thompson v. Keliher, 2024 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Seizure | Comments Off on D.Me.: State mandated GPS tracking of lobster boats reasonable under closely regulated business exception

IL: Arrest on recalled AW not suppressed where officers checked and rechecked it

Officers checked a law enforcement database and found an arrest warrant on defendant. They rechecked. Afterward, it turned out the warrant had been recalled but was still in the system due to a clerical error. The court will not suppress … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Reasonableness | Comments Off on IL: Arrest on recalled AW not suppressed where officers checked and rechecked it

OH1: Smoking MJ in public and jaywalking was RS for a patdown

“Mr. King challenges the foundation for the Terry stop, emphasizing that smoking marijuana in public and jaywalking are not arrestable offenses. True enough, but officers can issue tickets for both offenses. Cincinnati Mun.Code § 506-46 and 512-1; R.C. 3780.99(B). And … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on OH1: Smoking MJ in public and jaywalking was RS for a patdown

LA5: Defense attorney’s email about evidence on phone not protected by attorney-client privilege

A defense attorney’s email about evidence on a cell phone was used to get authority to search and seize the phone. Defendant claimed privilege; the state claimed that defense counsel was obligated to turn over material evidence. It was not … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Privileges | Comments Off on LA5: Defense attorney’s email about evidence on phone not protected by attorney-client privilege