Daily Archives: July 25, 2016

Fusion: Police asked this 3D printing lab to recreate a dead man’s fingers to unlock his phone

Fusion: Police asked this 3D printing lab to recreate a dead man’s fingers to unlock his phone by Rose Eveleth: So instead of asking the company that made the phone to grant them access, they’re going another route: having the … Continue reading

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Fusion: Police asked this 3D printing lab to recreate a dead man’s fingers to unlock his phone

N.D.Cal.: Listening devices in a public place overcame any reasonable expectation of privacy; 1984 was not just a book — it’s here

The FBI planted recording devices outside two courthouses in Northern California to catch conversations on the street between their targets. The devices were planted in a light fixture, a bus stop, and on a parked vehicle. The court finds no … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Listening devices in a public place overcame any reasonable expectation of privacy; 1984 was not just a book — it’s here

NJ: Heien reasonable mistake doesn’t apply to an unambiguous statute

Defendant was parked with high beams on on a one way street. The statute unambiguously says that it was not a violation unless there was an oncoming vehicle, and being on a one way street or an officer on foot … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness | Comments Off on NJ: Heien reasonable mistake doesn’t apply to an unambiguous statute

TN: Not filing motion to suppress was best strategy to disassociate from house searched by not having to show standing

Defense counsel’s refusal to file a motion to suppress the search of the place defendant was found in was reasonable strategy to separate defendant from the drugs found in the house. To seek to suppress the search, defendant would have … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Standing | Comments Off on TN: Not filing motion to suppress was best strategy to disassociate from house searched by not having to show standing

CA7: Ptf stated cause of action for illegal search and false arrest

Plaintiff ran a dog-grooming business and rescue shelter. One dog was overly aggressive and killed another dog, and another became gravely ill after whelping a litter. He took the dogs to Chicago animal control, and they ended up arresting him … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA7: Ptf stated cause of action for illegal search and false arrest

Cal.1st: Juvenile’s electronic search probation condition was shown justified by his circumstances

It was proper to impose an electronic search probation condition on a minor, even though it was not related to his burglary offense, because it was reasonably related to deterring future criminality. It allowed probation officers to monitor the minor’s … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on Cal.1st: Juvenile’s electronic search probation condition was shown justified by his circumstances

WA: Fisherman being ticketed for snagging fish asked about gun in car was not subject to protective weapons search

“Law enforcement need not obtain a warrant prior to conducting a protective vehicle search, so long as there is reasonable suspicion a suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons. We are confronted with whether a suspect’s potential … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on WA: Fisherman being ticketed for snagging fish asked about gun in car was not subject to protective weapons search

CA2: Exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture cases and govt’s civil discovery

In a forfeiture action against a NYC office building and several other buildings because one of the corporate owners was a front for the Iranian government, the Second Circuit held that “The Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies in civil forfeiture … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture | Comments Off on CA2: Exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture cases and govt’s civil discovery