Author Archives: Hall

PA: Firing an assault rifle in your house justifies a protective sweep

After defendant fired an assault rifle in his house, the police were called. A protective sweep to see if anyone was injured was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Coughlin, 2018 PA Super 304, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1221 (Nov. 14, 2018). “‘Probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on PA: Firing an assault rifle in your house justifies a protective sweep

OH2: Plain view of drugs through screen door justified entry

Officers came to an apartment with an arrest warrant. When the door inside was opened, they could see drugs in plain view within five feet of the door. It was reasonable for them to open the screen door to preserve … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on OH2: Plain view of drugs through screen door justified entry

OH11: No RS that a cigarette case contained a weapon to justify opening it

Opening a small metal box that was apparently a cigarette case was unreasonable because there was no reasonable suspicion that it contained a weapon. State v. Luther, 2018-Ohio-4568, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4887 (11th Dist. Nov. 13, 2018). Defendant’s guilty … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on OH11: No RS that a cigarette case contained a weapon to justify opening it

D.Minn.: Second SW cured defects in first

First search warrant probably violated the Fourth Amendment, but another was sought that omitted everything about the first search warrant, including what was found. The second was valid, and the good faith exception applied. United States v. Eggerson, 2018 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Independent source | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Second SW cured defects in first

S.D.Fla.: Govt oversearched and violated A-C privilege; but it wasn’t really bad enough to warrant sanctions, and govt not using it

The government reviewed attorney-client materials and failed to uphold the standards of DOJ to protect them from review by investigators. Nevertheless, it doesn’t rise high enough to require dismissal of the indictment. The government concedes that it won’t use some … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Overseizure, Privileges | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Govt oversearched and violated A-C privilege; but it wasn’t really bad enough to warrant sanctions, and govt not using it

AK: Search of def’s rifle case was unreasonable; he was doing nothing wrong

When defendant was stopped, the officer asked whether he had a firearm, which should have been obvious because there was a rifle case visible in the car. Defendant looked at the gun and reached to the case. The court finds … Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on AK: Search of def’s rifle case was unreasonable; he was doing nothing wrong

D.N.M.: Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration

Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration. The Franks challenge fails. United States v. Martinez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192181 (D. N.M. Nov. 9, 2018). Defendant had standing to challenge the … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Failure to mention the CI’s criminal history is less important when the affidavit shows extensive corroboration

S.D.N.Y.: Emails from CIs provided PC, and the SW was limited to categories of information

A CI gave emails to government investigators about health care fraud. They and other information provided probable cause for more emails. The warrants were particularized by being limited to eight categories. United States v. Mathieu, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192281 … Continue reading →

Posted in E-mail, Informant hearsay, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Emails from CIs provided PC, and the SW was limited to categories of information

E.D.Mich.: Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause

Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause. United States v. Gordon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190782 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 12, 2018):

Posted in Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to establish probable cause

W.D.La.: Officers’ subjective belief in def’s standing at time of search isn’t material to the court’s determination on objective facts

At the time of the search, officers believed defendant had standing in the place searched, but that’s not relevant to the court’s determination. “Federal agents were aware of Defendant and believed that he lived in the residence in question. But … Continue reading →

Posted in Probable cause, Standards of review | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Officers’ subjective belief in def’s standing at time of search isn’t material to the court’s determination on objective facts

WA: SW may be issued for mitigation evidence in death penalty case; here from def’s prison cell

A search warrant can be issued for evidence in mitigation of the death penalty. Defendant was charged with murder of a prison guard, and it was information in his prison cell of books, documents, and medical reports. The state law … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on WA: SW may be issued for mitigation evidence in death penalty case; here from def’s prison cell

CA4: Info known by officer but not included in affidavit can be considered in applying GFE

Defendant’s phone was lawfully seized incident to his arrest and then geting a search warrant. “We agree with the district court that the evidence obtained from Thomas’s phone is admissible under Leon. Our precedents make clear that in assessing an … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA4: Info known by officer but not included in affidavit can be considered in applying GFE

MA: “Freezing” house for alleged prostitution for alleged exigency was unreasonable

Police “froze” a house and searched the second floor for evidence of alleged prostitution; couldn’t be justified on this record. What physical evidence would there be? Commonwealth v. Owens, 480 Mass. 1034 (Nov. 7, 2018). There was a mistake in … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on MA: “Freezing” house for alleged prostitution for alleged exigency was unreasonable

UT: State const doesn’t require RS to run an LPN

“May a police officer, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, run a license plate check on a passing vehicle? The federal courts, interpreting the U.S. Constitution, have answered this question in the affirmative. Jennifer Oryall, who was found to be … Continue reading →

Posted in State constitution | Comments Off on UT: State const doesn’t require RS to run an LPN

S.D.Fla.: Co-def’s winning suppression motion shows IAC for this defendant

Defendant satisfied his burden of proof that defense counsel was ineffective because his codefendant prevailed on his motion to suppress. If he’d timely moved to set aside the plea it would have almost certainly been granted. Perez v. United States, … Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Co-def’s winning suppression motion shows IAC for this defendant

S.D.Ohio: Warrant was still particular because attachments were present at time of search

The search warrants here were particular because the affidavits and attachments were incorporated by reference and present at the time of the search. The temporal limitations on the warrant were not vague and stale. It was limited in scope otherwise. … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Staleness, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Warrant was still particular because attachments were present at time of search

LA1: Technical defect in oath for SW not ground to suppress

Technical defect in the oath in the search warrant application doesn’t warrant suppression of evidence. State v. Parker, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 2256 (La. App. 1 Cir. Nov. 10, 2018). A Rule 41(g) motion from pre-2000 seizure wasn’t timely in … Continue reading →

Posted in Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on LA1: Technical defect in oath for SW not ground to suppress

M.D.Fla.: Whether a state court judge could issue a ping order that crossed state lines is governed by GFE

A state court judge issued a ping order and the phone crossed state lines. Was it a tracking order or an SCA order? “The Court sees no need to venture further into the quagmire of tracking devices, the SCA, and … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Whether a state court judge could issue a ping order that crossed state lines is governed by GFE

D.Ariz.: Raising a search issue 5 months after conviction is a little too late

Defendant’s suppression argument five months after conviction is too late. Besides, it doesn’t allege anything of substance anyway. United States v. Alahmedalabdaloklah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189719 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2018).* Defendant’s search claim is denied without even telling … Continue reading →

Posted in Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Raising a search issue 5 months after conviction is a little too late

CA8: Means and opportunity to commit bank robbery and carjacking in flight was PC

Defendant’s means and opportunity to commit this bank robbery and carjacking in flight was probable cause. Video showing him at a motel was nexus to his room. United States v. Evans, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31326 (8th Cir. Nov. 6, … Continue reading →

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA8: Means and opportunity to commit bank robbery and carjacking in flight was PC