Daily Archives: November 29, 2014

E.D.Ky.: 911 call about burglary in progress led to objectively reasonable warrantless entry

Officers responded to a possible burglary 911 call in an area known for recent burglaries. They talked to the 911 caller, and she told them that the car parked across from the defendant’s house didn’t belong in the neighborhood, and … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Reasonableness | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: 911 call about burglary in progress led to objectively reasonable warrantless entry

The Hill: How to stop NSA from snooping on you

The Hill: How to stop NSA from snooping on you by Cory Bennett: The first thing to know about securing your phone is that you can’t secure your phone.

Posted in Cell phones, FISA | Comments Off on The Hill: How to stop NSA from snooping on you

VA: Lack of particularity in motion to suppress was waiver under statute

Defendant’s failure to refer to a Miranda violation as a product of an illegal arrest in the motion to suppress was a waiver. It did come up at the hearing, but it’s still considered waived. [See Treatise § 60.31] Gregory … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress | Comments Off on VA: Lack of particularity in motion to suppress was waiver under statute

D.Kan.: Omission of items from return not prejudicial; using footnotes in SW affidavit isn’t “hiding” information

First, defendant’s Franks argument fails. The negative information that he complains about not being more prominently displayed was “hidden” in a footnote in the 42 page affidavit. There is nothing that says that there can’t be information in footnotes. Second, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Scope of search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Omission of items from return not prejudicial; using footnotes in SW affidavit isn’t “hiding” information

MO: Entry to talk to defendant about stolen car was without exigency and suppressed

Officers got word that a man was trying to sell a stolen car, and they gave defendant’s address. One drove by defendant’s house five times before finding the car there, so he called for back up, doing a knock-and-talk over … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Emergency / exigency, Knock and talk | Comments Off on MO: Entry to talk to defendant about stolen car was without exigency and suppressed