Daily Archives: May 9, 2014

BLT: Court: Privacy Outweighs Public Interest in Dispute Over Cell Tracking Records

BLT: Court: Privacy Outweighs Public Interest in Dispute Over Cell Tracking Records by Zoe Tillman: The public doesn’t have a right to information on criminal cases involving warrantless cell phone tracking if the defendant was acquitted or had their case … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Informational privacy | Comments Off on BLT: Court: Privacy Outweighs Public Interest in Dispute Over Cell Tracking Records

Two inventory cases

This was a stop by Texas Tech PD, and defendant’s DL was suspended. Other things indicated drugs or drug usage. Nevertheless, the inventory of the vehicle was conducted in compliance with the department’s inventory policy and it wasn’t shown to … Continue reading

Posted in Inventory | Comments Off on Two inventory cases

AR: Alternative argument on timing of consent not ruled on below, so it’s defaulted

Consent was found against the defendant, and it’s affirmed on appeal because “the record is devoid of any evidence that appellant was coerced into consenting.” Her alternative argument that the consent was obtained after the search was already started was … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on AR: Alternative argument on timing of consent not ruled on below, so it’s defaulted

E.D.N.Y.: Exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency

An exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency, and this one was. (In this case, there was a hearing on a motion to suppress in state court before, and then the case was indicted federally, … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Scope of search | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency

LA: Arrest and search and seizure outside of an officer’s territorial jurisdiction does not warrant exclusion

An arrest and search and seizure outside of an officer’s territorial jurisdiction does not warrant exclusion. State v. Gates, 2014 La. LEXIS 1139 (May 7, 2014): Even if we assume Officer Bell acted outside of his territorial jurisdiction in the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on LA: Arrest and search and seizure outside of an officer’s territorial jurisdiction does not warrant exclusion