Author Archives: Hall

NY3: With PC and automobile exception, any hidden compartment can be searched

A probable cause search of a vehicle includes any hidden compartments. Here, they were apparent to the officers. People v. Kalabakas, 2020 NY Slip Op 02954, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3066 (3d Dept. May 21, 2020).

Posted in Automobile exception | Comments Off on NY3: With PC and automobile exception, any hidden compartment can be searched

GU: Driver of a car has apparent authority to consent to search

The driver of a car presumptively has the apparent authority to consent to its search even though he didn’t own it. People v. Quintanilla, 2020 Guam LEXIS 8 (May 21, 2020). Two new and unused meth pipes in defendant’s glove … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on GU: Driver of a car has apparent authority to consent to search

Two on delay under Rodriguez, one reasonable, one unreasonable

Under Rodriguez, “[a]s we have explained, having Barker sit in the patrol car was within ‘[t]he reasonable scope of the initial traffic stop’ itself. … The stop was not extended until the officer conducted a search, but by then, probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Two on delay under Rodriguez, one reasonable, one unreasonable

D.C.: Four day delay in getting SW for car and then searching it was unreasonable and interfered with def’s possessory interests

A four day delay between the seizure of defendant’s car and obtaining a search warrant for it unreasonably infringed on defendant’s possessory interest in the car. The exclusionary rule should be applied here because the delay was all the actions … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonableness, Seizure, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.C.: Four day delay in getting SW for car and then searching it was unreasonable and interfered with def’s possessory interests

IL: Hospital drawing blood was not acting as an agent of the state

A hospital drawing blood was not acting as an agent of the state. People v. Deroo, 2020 IL App (3d) 170163, 2020 Ill. App. LEXIS 313 (May 20, 2020). Defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment for seizure of a sheep … Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Warrant execution | Comments Off on IL: Hospital drawing blood was not acting as an agent of the state

NY2: Inclusion of some unauthorized persons in the list of those to execute the SW doesn’t void it

The search warrant here was directed to local police officers, the state police, and a special operations group of the sheriff’s office which included correctional officers which were not LEOs capable of executing warrants. Their inclusion didn’t void the warrant. … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on NY2: Inclusion of some unauthorized persons in the list of those to execute the SW doesn’t void it

OH9: Def’s motion to suppress should not have been granted for his failure to plead a violation of the constitution or law

Defendant’s motion to suppress should not have been granted for his failure to plead a violation of the constitution or law. State v. Leatherwood, 2020-Ohio-3012, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1956 (9th Dist. May 20, 2020):

Posted in Burden of pleading | Comments Off on OH9: Def’s motion to suppress should not have been granted for his failure to plead a violation of the constitution or law

Business Insider: Civil liberties groups are urging Congress to block the FBI from viewing Americans’ web-browsing history without a warrant

Business Insider: Civil liberties groups are urging Congress to block the FBI from viewing Americans’ web-browsing history without a warrant by Aaron Holmes (“More than 50 groups from across the political spectrum urged lawmakers to block legislation that would let … Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Business Insider: Civil liberties groups are urging Congress to block the FBI from viewing Americans’ web-browsing history without a warrant

CA2: PC and innocence of the crime charged are different things; a search incident to arrest can still be valid

Officers had probable cause to arrest for possession of marijuana despite the fact it later turned out he was innocent of possession. The inventory of his backpack was still valid. United States v. Bignon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15972 (2d … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA2: PC and innocence of the crime charged are different things; a search incident to arrest can still be valid

AR: State const’l requirement of right to refuse consent on knock-and-talk reaffirmed; suppression hearing stipulation can’t be used at trial

The police violated a longstanding state constitutional prohibition of a knock-and-talk seeking consent to enter a home without a warning of a right to refuse. In addition, a factual stipulation for the suppression hearing couldn’t be used by the state … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on AR: State const’l requirement of right to refuse consent on knock-and-talk reaffirmed; suppression hearing stipulation can’t be used at trial

CA10: Admission of CSLI evidence requires a witness for confrontation purposes

CSLI information obtained by warrant still requires a witness to explain them for confrontation purposes. State v. Lawson, 2020-Ohio-3004, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1952 (10th Dist. May 19, 2020). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress CSLI three … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Cell site location information, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA10: Admission of CSLI evidence requires a witness for confrontation purposes

D.P.R.: USMS observing def’s arrest in Dominican Republic didn’t make arresting officers U.S. agents

The USMS observing defendant’s arrest in the Dominican Republic wasn’t enough to make the actions of the arresting officers agents of the United States. United States v. Acevedo-Martinez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87958 (D. P.R. May 18, 2020):

Posted in Foreign searches | Comments Off on D.P.R.: USMS observing def’s arrest in Dominican Republic didn’t make arresting officers U.S. agents

CA9: Not clearly established that County of Riverside violation warrants suppression

It was not clearly established that a County of Riverside violation of allegedly delaying a probable cause determination to gather more evidence was subject to suppression. Even Riverside doesn’t say that it is. Thus, the district court’s determination counsel wasn’t … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA9: Not clearly established that County of Riverside violation warrants suppression

W.D.Wash.: Powering on a cell phone to look at the lock screen was a search intruding on defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy

Powering on a cell phone to look at the lock screen was a search intruding on defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Sam, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87143 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2020):

Posted in Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Search | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: Powering on a cell phone to look at the lock screen was a search intruding on defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy

D.Nev.: Franks challenges have two elements; failure of one is failure of the claim

The court can resolve Franks challenges by answering the easiest of the two questions, falsity or materiality, since both are required. Here, the alleged falsity wasn’t material to the probable cause determination, and that ends the inquiry. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Franks challenges have two elements; failure of one is failure of the claim

CA6: Lack of PC for SW doesn’t deprive court of jurisdiction over criminal case

In seeking a successor habeas petition, inter alia: (1) all the alleged ineffective assistance claims were known at the time of the original petition; (2) “Joy’s claim that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his prosecution because the search-warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA6: Lack of PC for SW doesn’t deprive court of jurisdiction over criminal case

C.D.Cal.: Habeas case seeks to enjoin state prosecution, and it is barred by Younger abstention

Petitioner’s 2241 habeas case seeks to enjoin his state prosecution, and it is barred by Younger abstention. Bibbs v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87057 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2020):

Posted in Abandonment | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Habeas case seeks to enjoin state prosecution, and it is barred by Younger abstention

Louisville Courier Journal: Two articles on no knock SWs

Louisville Courier Journal: Rand Paul says no-knock warrants ‘should be forbidden’ in wake of Breonna Taylor shooting by Phillip M. Bailey (“‘No one should lose their life in pursuit of a crime without a victim, and “no-knock” warrants should be … Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras, Knock and announce | Comments Off on Louisville Courier Journal: Two articles on no knock SWs

CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

Plaintiff was arrested for child pornography when officers executed a search warrant at his house based on a video uploaded via the IP address and router in the house. There was probable cause for the arrest, but not for the … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Computer and cloud searches, Overseizure | Comments Off on CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

S.D.Fla.: Florida’s stay-at-home order didn’t violate the Bill of Rights or the 14A

Florida’s stay-at-home order didn’t violate the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment. Henry v. Desantis, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86396 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2020)*:

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Florida’s stay-at-home order didn’t violate the Bill of Rights or the 14A