Author Archives: Hall

N.D.Ga.: Two year delay in searching seized cell phone not unreasonable

Defendant’s cell phone was seized in April 2017 but not finally searched until April 2019. This was still reasonable under Rule 41. United States v. Dixon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95041 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2021):

Posted in Cell phones, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Two year delay in searching seized cell phone not unreasonable

OR: Lifting jail curtain to see def in jail bathroom was not violation of State Const. or 4A

Partially lifting a curtain in jail to observe defendant in the bathroom was not a violation of his reasonable expectation of privacy under the State Constitution nor the Fourth Amendment. State v. Taplin, 311 Or. App. 542, 2021 Ore. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on OR: Lifting jail curtain to see def in jail bathroom was not violation of State Const. or 4A

N.D.Ohio: 5 yo child wandering in apt parking lot at 2:30 am was exigency when door was open to apt

A five year old boy found wandering at 2:30 am in an apartment building parking lot was exigency for the police to further open defendant’s partially open door when the apartment was found. United States v. Shorter, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Motion to suppress, Private search, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: 5 yo child wandering in apt parking lot at 2:30 am was exigency when door was open to apt

NY, Bronx: A tracking warrant isn’t an eavesdropping warrant

Defendant had standing to challenge a tracking warrant on his phone despite the state’s claim that wasn’t the cause for his arrest. He was tracked. These were not eavesdropping warrants. “Because the location information provided pursuant to the warrant did … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Qualified immunity, Standing, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on NY, Bronx: A tracking warrant isn’t an eavesdropping warrant

techdirt: DoD Is Buying Domestic Internet Metadata From Data Brokers

techdirt: Defense Department Is Buying Domestic Internet Metadata From Data Brokers by Tim Cushing (“Joseph Cox broke the news for Motherboard late last year: the US military was also making use of location data purchased from data brokers, joining a … Continue reading →

Posted in Digital privacy | Comments Off on techdirt: DoD Is Buying Domestic Internet Metadata From Data Brokers

Inside Hook: Amazon’s Ring Is Basically a Giant Civilian Surveillance Network

Inside Hook: Amazon’s Ring Is Basically a Giant Civilian Surveillance Network by Kirk Miller (“After partnering with almost 2,000 police departments, is this home security product a threat to democracy?”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Inside Hook: Amazon’s Ring Is Basically a Giant Civilian Surveillance Network

S.D.Ohio: Govt doesn’t overcome right of access to seek to seal SW materials

The defense moved for access to search warrant materials for a potential motion to suppress. The government moved to seal them. The government’s motion is denied. There is generally a right of access in search warrant materials by the defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Govt doesn’t overcome right of access to seek to seal SW materials

CA3: SW including “any and all cell phones” could be overbroad, but not here where there were only two

“Taylor contends that the description of ‘any and all cellular telephones’ contained in this warrant is overly broad and thus lacks the requisite particularity. Although a warrant allowing seizure of ‘any and all cellular telephones’ may be overbroad, this record … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Overbreadth | Comments Off on CA3: SW including “any and all cell phones” could be overbroad, but not here where there were only two

S.D.Fla.: Suppression motion issue selection is strategic choice under Strickland

“[C]ounsel was not ineffective as it relates to the search warrants at issue because counsel filed motions to suppress raising multiple arguments, and Movant failed to show that counsel’s strategic choice to pursue certain arguments over others—such as the Fourth … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Suppression motion issue selection is strategic choice under Strickland

KS: Officer’s two calls to dispatch telling him there was a warrant was reasonable under Herring

Defendant’s arrest based on the officer’s two calls to dispatch insisting there was a warrant for defendant was reasonable reliance on a mistake of another under Herring. State v. Gilliland, 2021 Kan. App. LEXIS 21 (May 14, 2021). The French … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on KS: Officer’s two calls to dispatch telling him there was a warrant was reasonable under Herring

WA: Unverified belief in existence of arrest warrant required suppression

Unverified belief there was an arrest warrant for defendant required that the arrest and search be suppressed. State v. Pines, 2021 Wash. App. LEXIS 1223 (May 17, 2021). “Here, while the record is unclear as to when the outstanding warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Attenuation, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on WA: Unverified belief in existence of arrest warrant required suppression

S.D.Ohio: PC to arrest doesn’t equal PC to search the suspect’s house, but where do people normally hide things?

Explaining the competing interests in nexus is United States v. Reliford, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93053 (S.D. Ohio May 17, 2021). Probable cause to arrest doesn’t equal probable cause to search the suspect’s house, but where do people normally hide … Continue reading →

Posted in Nexus | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: PC to arrest doesn’t equal PC to search the suspect’s house, but where do people normally hide things?

D.D.C.: Videos referred to in criminal complaints in Capitol Riot Cases presumptively public records

The videos referred to in criminal complaints in the Capitol Riot Cases are presumptively public records. In Re: Press and Public Access to Video Exhibits in the Capitol Riot Cases, Misc. Action No. 21-46 (BAH) (D.D.C. May 14, 2021). A … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Videos referred to in criminal complaints in Capitol Riot Cases presumptively public records

CA11: Adding in the omitted information still showed PC

“Detective Tuck’s affidavit omitted some information favorable to Martelli, but even if we assume that those omissions were intentional or reckless, the claim still fails. It fails because, even including all the omitted information, a reasonable officer in Tuck’s position … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Nexus | Comments Off on CA11: Adding in the omitted information still showed PC

LA5: Use of a flashlight on a car is still a plain view

Using a flashlight to look in a car was still a valid plain view. State v. Williams, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 767 (La. App. 5 Cir. May 13, 2021). Where the alleged OWI offender was incapacitated, Mitchell applies to his … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Nexus, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on LA5: Use of a flashlight on a car is still a plain view

WaPo: Amazon extends ban on police use of its facial recognition technology indefinitely

WaPo: Amazon extends ban on police use of its facial recognition technology indefinitely by Drew Harwell (“The tech giant said in June its freeze would last a year to ‘give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules.’ No federal laws … Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on WaPo: Amazon extends ban on police use of its facial recognition technology indefinitely

CA7: FBI’s enlisting govt employee to take records from another’s office was unreasonable search

A government employee, like a private employee, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her office. A co-worker at the insistence of the FBI gathered evidence from defendant’s office and violated the Fourth Amendment. But for these illegal … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Knock and announce, Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA7: FBI’s enlisting govt employee to take records from another’s office was unreasonable search

E.D.N.C.: Window tint violations always require a stop

Window tint violations require a stop to verify. “But the Supreme Court has said that ‘[t]o be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Nexus, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Window tint violations always require a stop

E.D.Tenn.: Omissions in Franks claims carry a higher burden

“Because defendant’s [Franks] claim relates to an alleged omission, he bears a heavy burden, as a Franks hearing is rarely merited in the case of an omission of exculpatory information. See Graham, 275 F.3d at 506. The Court does not … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Omissions in Franks claims carry a higher burden

SCOTUS: Community caretaking function didn’t permit entry into unoccupied home to secure firearms when occupant left at request of police

The community caretaking function didn’t permit a warrantless entry into defendant’s home to secure his firearms after he left the home without them to get psychiatric help. He also asked that his guns not be seized when he left the … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function | Comments Off on SCOTUS: Community caretaking function didn’t permit entry into unoccupied home to secure firearms when occupant left at request of police