Daily Archives: May 6, 2014

D.Mass.: Prison visitor strip search lacked justification; no qualified immunity

Plaintiff’s prison visit questioning for 15-20 minutes about whether she had brought drugs into a prison was reasonable. Her strip search based on an anonymous tip was completely uncorroborated and was without reasonable suspicion. The law had been clearly established … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Strip search | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Prison visitor strip search lacked justification; no qualified immunity

E.D.Wis.: If defendant doesn’t tell his lawyer something, the lawyer can’t be ineffective about it

Defendant contends that the search of his vehicle was without his consent, and defense counsel was ineffective for not raising that issue. The court finds as a fact that defendant never mentioned that to defense counsel, therefore, counsel couldn’t be … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: If defendant doesn’t tell his lawyer something, the lawyer can’t be ineffective about it

E.D.N.C.: If information omitted doesn’t undermine PC, no Franks violation

At worst, the officer’s omission of three things from the affidavit for search warrant was negligent, not reckless, and, even if the material was included, it doesn’t defeat the finding of probable cause. “Thus, because Mr. Simpson has failed to … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, E-mail, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: If information omitted doesn’t undermine PC, no Franks violation

WaPo: Volokh: My defense of the third-party doctrine, and a response to Randy and Stewart

WaPo: Volokh: My defense of the third-party doctrine, and a response to Randy and Stewart by Orin Kerr: With my co-bloggers Randy Barnett and Stewart Baker debating Smith v. Maryland and the third-party doctrine, I figured I would offer some … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on WaPo: Volokh: My defense of the third-party doctrine, and a response to Randy and Stewart