Author Archives: Hall

Bloomberg: Facebook Data Release to Cops Evades 4A Limits Deep Dive

Bloomberg: Facebook Data Release to Cops Evades Fourth Amendment Limits Deep Dive by Jake Holland (“A Ninth Circuit ruling that allows tech companies to turn over an individual’s online account data to law enforcement for preservation without violating the Fourth … Continue reading →

Posted in Social media warrants | Comments Off on Bloomberg: Facebook Data Release to Cops Evades 4A Limits Deep Dive

CA11: Pressing key fob found during search of home to find car didn’t violate 4A

Pressing the key fob found inside during a search to locate the car outside was reasonable under the automobile exception. United States v. Fortson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11176 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2022). “Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Protective sweep, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Pressing key fob found during search of home to find car didn’t violate 4A

Bloomberg Law: Justices Reject Case Over Real-Time Phone Location Tracking

Bloomberg Law: Justices Reject Case Over Real-Time Phone Location Tracking (“The U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh whether the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections are implicated when law enforcement uses cell carrier signals to reveal a person’s whereabouts in real time.”)

Posted in Cell phones, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on Bloomberg Law: Justices Reject Case Over Real-Time Phone Location Tracking

10A Center: Is Qualified Immunity “Necessary?”

10A Center: Is Qualified Immunity “Necessary?” by Mike Maharrey (“Qualified immunity is a legal defense that allows government officials to escape civil lawsuits when they are accused of violating constitutional rights. Opponents say it lets bad government actors escape accountability. … Continue reading →

Posted in Qualified immunity | Comments Off on 10A Center: Is Qualified Immunity “Necessary?”

Cal.: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation

The exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation. In re Christopher L., 2022 Cal. LEXIS 2313 (Apr. 25, 2022) (recognizing rule). “Hecke is correct that Detective Compton did not provide details of BSC’s criminal history or a description … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation

MI: Merely passing money to a man in car who counted it is not RS

Merely passing money to a man in car who counted it is not reasonable suspicion. People v. Soulliere, 2022 Mich. LEXIS 798 (Apr. 22, 2022). Defendant was stopped for an alleged unsafe lane change and expired Pennsylvania tags. There was … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MI: Merely passing money to a man in car who counted it is not RS

ABA: An Unclassified Look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts

ABA: An Unclassified Look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts by Hon. Richard C. Tallman and Tania M. Culbertson, ABA Litigation, vol. 48, No. 2 (Winter 2022) (“They have recently become more transparent, but practicing before these specialty courts presents … Continue reading →

Posted in FISA | Comments Off on ABA: An Unclassified Look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts

VI: Procedural errors in telephonic SW not suppressible without recklessness or bad faith

The procedural deficiencies in obtaining the telephonic warrants did not render them invalid. There was no showing of bad faith by the officers. People v. Glasford, 2022 VI SUPER 42, 2022 V.I. LEXIS 40 (Apr. 19, 2022). A person detained … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Voluntariness | Comments Off on VI: Procedural errors in telephonic SW not suppressible without recklessness or bad faith

N.D.Ala.: Imprecision in the SW affidavit isn’t a Franks violation

Imprecision in the affiant investigator’s words doesn’t equate to recklessness for Franks purposes. United States v. Tubbs, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73473 (N.D.Ala. Mar. 14, 2022).* Defendant’s alleged Franks violation wasn’t even material based on all the evidence that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Imprecision in the SW affidavit isn’t a Franks violation

OH1: GPS pings on stolen vehicle led to attempted knock-and-talk and observation of its tracks

Officers following a GPS ping on stolen vehicle with off-road tires came to defendant’s home for a knock-and-talk. Receiving no answer, the officer followed the driveway and saw three storage buildings. “Because the driveway is open to the public and … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Curtilage, Knock and talk, Waiver | Comments Off on OH1: GPS pings on stolen vehicle led to attempted knock-and-talk and observation of its tracks

CA7: There is no “one-frisk-only rule”

“‘[A] one-frisk-only rule would create a privacy-adverse Fourth Amendment incentive’ for officers to perform ‘the most intrusive frisk possible the first time around, knowing that no more would be allowed.’” Here, there was reasonable suspicion for both frisks. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident | Comments Off on CA7: There is no “one-frisk-only rule”

S.D.Miss.: 4A isn’t a basis to challenge federal marijuana criminalization

The Fourth Amendment provides no basis to claim that federal prosecution of marijuana cases violates the Constitution. United States v. Jones, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73000 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 21, 2022).* The officer here had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Excessive force, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: 4A isn’t a basis to challenge federal marijuana criminalization

D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

Officers relied on settled law in this circuit that the search incident was valid. Maybe it wouldn’t be later, but it was at the time. The exclusionary rule should not be applied under Davis. “Given the similarity of these two … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Standards of review | Comments Off on D.Me.: Settled law at the time means exclusionary rule not applied, even if the law was later changing

NY3: Pleading guilty after suppression hearing but before decision is waiver

Pleading guilty after the suppression hearing but before it was decided is waiver. People v. Lende, 2022 NY Slip Op 02581, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2476 (3d Dept. Apr. 21, 2022). The stop here was with reasonable suspicion. Officers … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Staleness, Waiver | Comments Off on NY3: Pleading guilty after suppression hearing but before decision is waiver

W.D.Tex.: Def had REP in bag in car but no standing in rest of search of car

While defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the car he was in, he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bag in the car. United States v. Grice, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72586 (W.D.Tex. Apr. 20, 2022). … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Nexus, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Def had REP in bag in car but no standing in rest of search of car

CA4: 4A governs search claims, not due process clause

The Fourth Amendment governs searches [after Rochin and its “shocking the conscience” standard] not the due process clause. Smith v. Travelpiece, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10743 n.6 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2022):

Posted in Due process | Comments Off on CA4: 4A governs search claims, not due process clause

D.N.J.: No standing in car GPS def sometimes rode in

Defendant failed to show standing to challenge seizure of the GPS in vehicles he sometimes was a passenger in. United States v. Mims, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72333 (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2022). There was reasonable suspicion to extend this stop … Continue reading →

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.J.: No standing in car GPS def sometimes rode in

AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

The search authorization for this service member’s cell phone was overbroad and failed to include text messages which were at issue. This failed Leon’s good faith exception: “We disagree, and find the fourth Leon exception clearly applies in this case—that … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

CA2: Video surveillance in Thailand legal under Thai law admissible here

The DEA with Thai officers installed a camera and listening device in a dwelling in Phuket, Thailand. Defendant was a short-time guest there and he was recorded. Apparently the installation and monitoring was legal under Thai law. The capture of … Continue reading →

Posted in Foreign searches, Independent source, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA2: Video surveillance in Thailand legal under Thai law admissible here

CA11: 4A violation isn’t actual innocence claim for habeas

An alleged Fourth Amendment violation is not an actual innocence claim for habeas. “Fourth, he argues that he is actually innocent given that he was denied his right to counsel when investigators continued to interrogate him, despite his unequivocal request … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA11: 4A violation isn’t actual innocence claim for habeas