Daily Archives: October 13, 2014

WaPo: Volokh: Intelligence Squared debate: Mass collection of U.S. phone records violates the Fourth Amendment

WaPo: Volokh: Intelligence Squared debate: Mass collection of U.S. phone records violates the Fourth Amendment by Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz: Intelligence Squared presented an excellent debate last week at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia — “Resolved: Mass collection of U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, FISA, Informational privacy | Comments Off on WaPo: Volokh: Intelligence Squared debate: Mass collection of U.S. phone records violates the Fourth Amendment

60 Minutes: FBI director on privacy, electronic surveillance

60 Minutes: FBI director on privacy, electronic surveillance: FBI Director James Comey speaks with Scott Pelley about our lives online and the need for government electronic surveillance, but only with a court order.

Posted in ECPA, FISA | Comments Off on 60 Minutes: FBI director on privacy, electronic surveillance

CA4: A motion to suppress raised after the government rested in a jury trial is a waiver; early notice is vital

A motion to suppress raised after the government rested in a jury trial is a waiver. The pretrial filing rule exists for important reasons of notice to the parties. United States v. Moore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19648 (4th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on CA4: A motion to suppress raised after the government rested in a jury trial is a waiver; early notice is vital

VT: Suspicionless parole searches for internet access and computer use of a SO was reasonable

Probation and parole services did not need reasonable suspicion to conduct home searches of a convicted sex offender for internet access. When released, he agreed to suspicionless searches. There is a state law prohibition on arbitrary or harassing searches, but … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on VT: Suspicionless parole searches for internet access and computer use of a SO was reasonable

E.D.N.C.: Consent after police entered for protective sweep after arrest outside was involuntary

Defendant was arrested outside his house and officers entered to conduct a protective sweep for protection of evidence. The protective sweep produced nothing. They brought him inside handcuffed and, unMirandized, told him they had probable cause for a warrant and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Consent after police entered for protective sweep after arrest outside was involuntary

CA7: Davis GFE saves pre-Jardines-type search

Defendant was remanded for resentencing, and he sought to reopen his suppression hearing in light of Jardines. Agreeing that a “change in the law” can justify departure from the mandate of reversal, defendant loses on the Jardines argument because it … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Dog sniff, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA7: Davis GFE saves pre-Jardines-type search

OR: Where defendant was to be booked and released, jail search was unreasonable

Search at jail wasn’t shown to be necessary or inevitable, and state conceded error (decided under state constitution). Defendant likely would have been booked and released. State v. Moulton, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1372 (October 8, 2014).* Defendant’s refusal to … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Special needs, Standing | Comments Off on OR: Where defendant was to be booked and released, jail search was unreasonable

MS: RS justified def’s “detainment” and it turned into search incident

Officers were investigating an armed robbery and were looking for suspects. Defendant conceded in his motion to suppress that the stop was valid, so he can’t argue to the contrary on appeal. In his patdown, something rolled up was found, … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident | Comments Off on MS: RS justified def’s “detainment” and it turned into search incident

OH5: This patdown was by consent

The patdown here was by consent. A request doesn’t ipso facto make it a demand. “{¶23} The United States Supreme Court further noted, ‘[w]hile most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH5: This patdown was by consent