- E.D.Tex.: Def had no REP in a stolen travel trailer
- VT: A CI who is already in trouble with the police has an interest in truthfulness, and thus is likely more reliable
- PA: Request for consent to search by two officers with no dog present was not consent to a dog sniff
- D.Minn.: Officer’s affidavit showed PC that clothing or proceeds of robbery would be at def’s home seven weeks after robber
- E.D.Mich.: Drugs don’t have to be forensically tested after a controlled buy for there to be PC
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. 25k posts since 2003
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG, SF
State courts (and some USDC opinions)
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
--Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Frontier Foundation
NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
—Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today."
— Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property."
—Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."
—United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
---Pepé Le Pew
—Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
Website design by Wally Waller, Little Rock
2017 ABA Journal Web 100
Category Archives: Subpoenas / Nat’l Security Letters
CNET: Microsoft drops suit over Justice Dept.’s secret data requests by Steven Musil: The move comes after the Justice Department says it would scale back demands for customer data without their knowledge. WaPo: Justice Department moves to end routine gag … Continue reading
WaPo: When is a Facebook ‘like’ a crime? by Ann E. Marimow: The U.S. attorney’s office for D.C. told a judge Friday that the government has ‘little interest’ in obtaining the names of thousands of people who ‘liked’ the Facebook … Continue reading
Fortune: How the Justice Department’s Facebook Subpoenas Threaten Free Speech by Aziz Hug: In recent months, the U.S. Justice Department has issued subpoenas against Facebook and web host DreamHost for records of thousands, perhaps millions, of citizens who expressed interest … Continue reading
E.D.N.Y.: Under SCA, govt has to show disclosure of inquiry to target “will” hamper investigation, not just “may”
The gag order provisions of the SCA requires the government show that disclosure “will” hamper the investigation, but the government only showed “may,” and that’s not enough. Denied without prejudice to show “will.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2016 U.S. … Continue reading
D.Utah: DEA SDT to Utah’s prescription database was reasonable and didn’t offend 4A; state law requires SW for access
The DEA, via authority of the AG, issued an administrative subpoena under 21 U.S.C. § 876(a) to the Utah prescription drug database for information on a particular user. Utah statute required a search warrant. The state and intervenors showed standing … Continue reading
CA9: Intervenors show no standing to challenge admin. SDT to Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
Intervenors showed no Art. III standing to challenge the DEA’s administrative subpoenas to the Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Art. III standing requires that they show independent standing to sue. Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. United States Drug Enforcement … Continue reading
The State lacked standing to challenge the subpoenas issued to its witnesses and electronic communications service providers seeking cell phone and social media communications because it had no personal right, privilege, or proprietary interest in the electronic communications at issue, … Continue reading
NYTimes: U.S. Blinks in Clash With Twitter; Drops Order to Unmask Anti-Trump Account by Mike Isaac: Last month, the federal government issued a summons ordering Twitter to hand over information about an anonymous account that had posted messages critical of … Continue reading
A court order approving a search warrant for Facebook records is not appealable under New York law. The court rejects that the SCA is more like a subpoena than a search warrant, and the rule has been long standing in … Continue reading
Ars Technica: Judge sides with Microsoft, allows “gag order” challenge to advance by Cyrus Farivar Microsoft Corp. v. United States DOJ, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18691 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 8, 2017) Court: “First Amendment rights may outweigh the Government interest … Continue reading
OR: Adm subpoena was within agency’s power; third party doctrine issue saved for later with better facts
The administrative subpoena issued here by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services was “squarely” within its statutory investigative power of regulating unregistered securities. “Given the factual and legal posture in which this issue arises, we resolve this case … Continue reading
OR: Def’s SDT for narrow computer files of alleged rape victim was reasonable when it pertained to credibility
Defendant was accused of rape, and the victim told others she had searched Google for information about rape under Oregon law shortly afterward. Defendant sought production of her Google search history to attempt to attack her credibility. The state could … Continue reading