Author Archives: Hall

Yes, I know this blog is behind

I have a three week trial in early March. I’m doing what I can, but 40-50 cases a day come from Lexis.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Yes, I know this blog is behind

SCOTUS: The estate of a young man shot and killed across the U.S.-Mexico border by a U.S. Border Patrol agent has no 4A or 5A Bivens claim.

The estate of a young man shot and killed across the U.S.-Mexico border by a U.S. Border Patrol agent for no reason has no Bivens claim for a Fourth or Fifth Amendment claim. Hernández v. Mesa, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 1361 … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Police misconduct, SCOTUS | Comments Off on SCOTUS: The estate of a young man shot and killed across the U.S.-Mexico border by a U.S. Border Patrol agent has no 4A or 5A Bivens claim.

techdirt: Ring Continues To Pitch Facial Recognition To Law Enforcement While Claiming It Won’t Be Adding Facial Recognition To Its Cameras

techdirt: Ring Continues To Pitch Facial Recognition To Law Enforcement While Claiming It Won’t Be Adding Facial Recognition To Its Cameras by Tim Cushing (“Ring continues to insist it is not adding facial recognition to its sadly super-popular doorbell cameras. … Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on techdirt: Ring Continues To Pitch Facial Recognition To Law Enforcement While Claiming It Won’t Be Adding Facial Recognition To Its Cameras

Vox: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.

Vox: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t. By Sara Morrison (“Phones hold gigabytes of potential evidence, but the government’s ability to access them depends on a patchwork of court decisions … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Digital privacy | Comments Off on Vox: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.

Lawfare: Do Geofence Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment?

Lawfare: Do Geofence Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment? by Nathaniel Sobel:

Posted in Tracking warrant | Comments Off on Lawfare: Do Geofence Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment?

17th anniversary of this blog; 259th anniversary of Otis’ argument in Paxton’s Case

Today is the 17th anniversary of this blog. Today is also the 259th anniversary of James Otis’ 1761 argument at the Boston Old State House against the writs of assistance in Paxton’s Case. Transcripts of the argument are here. (It … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on 17th anniversary of this blog; 259th anniversary of Otis’ argument in Paxton’s Case

Mother Jones: California Cops Are Collecting Info on Millions of Drivers Who Have Done Nothing Wrong

Mother Jones: California Cops Are Collecting Info on Millions of Drivers Who Have Done Nothing Wrong (“With few rules and no oversight, California’s biggest law enforcement agencies are sharing millions of driver records.”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Mother Jones: California Cops Are Collecting Info on Millions of Drivers Who Have Done Nothing Wrong

CBS News: Racial Profiling 2.0

CBS News: Racial Profiling 2.0 (“As police departments turn to big data to help reduce crime in their neighborhoods, advocacy groups are sounding the alarm about high-tech racial profiling. The algorithm-driven systems analyze supposedly impartial historical crime data to predict … Continue reading →

Posted in Racial profiling | Comments Off on CBS News: Racial Profiling 2.0

OH: Lack of RS for stop or knowledge of an arrest warrant denies state reliance on Strieff for outstanding warrant

Defendant was sitting in a car near a drug house doing nothing wrong. Police accosted him under the pretext there might be a warrant for him. It turned out there was. Even applying Strieff, the court concludes that Strieff was … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Motion to suppress, Standing | Comments Off on OH: Lack of RS for stop or knowledge of an arrest warrant denies state reliance on Strieff for outstanding warrant

OH: While affidavit for SW may have been deficient, it was supplemented by testimony and it was reasonable to find PC

While the affidavit itself may have been deficient on showing probable cause, the officer provided the issuing magistrate additional information to supplement it. Thus, the officer reasonably relied upon the warrant in good faith. Trial court erred in suppressing. State … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on OH: While affidavit for SW may have been deficient, it was supplemented by testimony and it was reasonable to find PC

CA11: Further detaining plaintiff at jail after she made bond on a hunch she was not legally in the U.S. denied QI

“The evidence, interpreted in the light most favorable to Alcocer, is sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Mills violated Alcocer’s Fourth Amendment rights by continuing to detain her without new probable cause after her attempted posting of bond … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Immigration arrests, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA11: Further detaining plaintiff at jail after she made bond on a hunch she was not legally in the U.S. denied QI

W.D.N.Y.: Getting def to unlock his phone wasn’t unreasonable because the SIM card would have been forensically searched later anyway

It was reasonable for POs to search defendant’s unapproved cell phone without a search warrant as a probation search. Making him use his face or get the password to unlock the phone was not unreasonable because the contents of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Inevitable discovery, Privileges | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Getting def to unlock his phone wasn’t unreasonable because the SIM card would have been forensically searched later anyway

N.D.Miss.: Issuing USMJ can’t be subpoenaed to testify to mental impressions in issuing SW

Defendant doesn’t get to subpoena the issuing magistrates for the search warrant because their mental impressions are irrelevant and whether a telephonic warrant was avoidable by essentially shopping for a different judge. Nevertheless, the issue is held in abeyance since … Continue reading →

Posted in Suppression hearings | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: Issuing USMJ can’t be subpoenaed to testify to mental impressions in issuing SW

NYTimes: Greyhound to Stop Allowing Border Patrol Agents on Its Buses Without Warrants

NYTimes: Greyhound to Stop Allowing Border Patrol Agents on Its Buses Without Warrants by Johnny Diaz (“The bus company announced the policy change only days after a leaked memo revealed that agents could not board without consent.”)

Posted in Immigration arrests, Immigration checkpoints | Comments Off on NYTimes: Greyhound to Stop Allowing Border Patrol Agents on Its Buses Without Warrants

MT: Mandamus to get SW materials from 1998 denied for complete failure to comply with mandamus statute

Mandamus to get search warrant materials from 1998 denied: “Insua’s instant petition is lacking because it does not conform to Montana statutes. He has not filed a verified petition or included an affidavit, pursuant to § 27-26-201, MCA. Insua has … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on MT: Mandamus to get SW materials from 1998 denied for complete failure to comply with mandamus statute

E.D.Mich.: The person stopped telling police he knows his rights isn’t RS; his flight from an unreasonable stop wasn’t RS either

“Just as numerous courts have stated nervousness cannot be a reliable indicator of criminal activity, loudly asserting one’s right to terminate an encounter with officers does not provide reasonable suspicion for continued investigation of suspected criminal activity.” United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: The person stopped telling police he knows his rights isn’t RS; his flight from an unreasonable stop wasn’t RS either

CA8: “Other media” in a SW includes cell phones

“Other media” in a search warrant includes cell phones. United States v. Oliver, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5035 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 2020):

Posted in Cell phones, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA8: “Other media” in a SW includes cell phones

CA11: § 1983 case can’t be used as substitute for state court appeal of a 4A claim

“Mr. Lynn does not raise a non-frivolous issue for appeal. Below, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant officers because it concluded Mr. Lynn’s Fourth Amendment claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. … [¶] The District Court … Continue reading →

Posted in Abstention | Comments Off on CA11: § 1983 case can’t be used as substitute for state court appeal of a 4A claim

D.Mont.: Tracking warrant issue date was a typo; whether state law was complied with doesn’t matter in federal court

The tracking warrant issue date was mistaken. The court finds it was the latter of two dates, and the tracking occurred for only five days, within the requirements of Rule 41(e)(2)(C). Whether the tracking warrant complied with state law is … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Tracking warrant issue date was a typo; whether state law was complied with doesn’t matter in federal court

SC: Search of cell phone abandoned at crime scene was reasonable since just to determine ownership

A shooting occurred in a Taco Bell parking lot, apparently a drug deal gone bad. Three cell phones were found in the car. The police searched them without a warrant and one was defendants. The state argued abandonment (which it … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Reasonableness | Comments Off on SC: Search of cell phone abandoned at crime scene was reasonable since just to determine ownership