Daily Archives: January 26, 2015

The Marshall Project: Does tear gas belong in schools? Do police?

The Marshall Project: Does tear gas belong in schools? Do police? by Dana Goldstein: On Jan. 20, a federal court in Birmingham began hearing arguments in a class-action lawsuit alleging that school-based police officers used excessive force in spraying disabling … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on The Marshall Project: Does tear gas belong in schools? Do police?

WaPo: New role for District police body cameras

Washington Post: New role for District police body cameras by Keith Alexander: When D.C. police began outfitting some officers’ shirts and glasses with miniature cameras in the fall, the objectives were obvious: to protect residents from overly zealous officers during … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on WaPo: New role for District police body cameras

NYTimes: Verizon’s Mobile ‘Supercookies’ Seen as Threat to Privacy

NYTimes: Verizon’s Mobile ‘Supercookies’ Seen as Threat to Privacy by Natasha Singer and Brian X. Chenjan: For the last several months, cybersecurity experts have been warning Verizon Wireless that it was putting the privacy of its customers at risk. The … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on NYTimes: Verizon’s Mobile ‘Supercookies’ Seen as Threat to Privacy

FL: Litigation of 2000 search issue in Wisconsin finding GFE applied was collateral estoppel on later case in Florida on same search

Conflict of laws: Defendant was the target of a search in 2000 in Wisconsin, and, after conviction, the warrant was found issued without probable cause but the good faith exception applied. Some of the DNA evidence from that case linked … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on FL: Litigation of 2000 search issue in Wisconsin finding GFE applied was collateral estoppel on later case in Florida on same search

D.Kan.: Return of property denied; although this case dismissed, codefendant’s case still alive

Return of property denied despite the fact defendant’s case was dismissed. Defendant’s wife was his codefendant, and she was convicted, but she’s litigating a 2255, so the evidence may still be needed by the government. United States v. Neighbors, 2015 … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Return of property denied; although this case dismissed, codefendant’s case still alive