Daily Archives: February 9, 2017

Ars Technica: Judge sides with Microsoft, allows “gag order” challenge to advance

Ars Technica: Judge sides with Microsoft, allows “gag order” challenge to advance by Cyrus Farivar Microsoft Corp. v. United States DOJ, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18691 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 8, 2017) Court: “First Amendment rights may outweigh the Government interest … Continue reading

Posted in Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on Ars Technica: Judge sides with Microsoft, allows “gag order” challenge to advance

WaPo: ‘The Watch’ Blog: 11th Circuit: Cops weren’t given enough notice that police tactics used for decades are unconstitutional

WaPo: ‘The Watch’ Blog: 11th Circuit: Cops weren’t given enough notice that police tactics used for decades are unconstitutional by Radley Balko:

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on WaPo: ‘The Watch’ Blog: 11th Circuit: Cops weren’t given enough notice that police tactics used for decades are unconstitutional

LA5: PC developed in lengthy investigation excused lack of SW by inevitable discovery

It wasn’t reasonable for the police to believe that defendant’s father had apparent authority to consent to a search of locked box. However, inevitable discovery applies because the investigation was well underway, and there was probable cause for a search … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on LA5: PC developed in lengthy investigation excused lack of SW by inevitable discovery

D.Nev.: Untimely motion to suppress summarily denied

Defendant’s untimely motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Drexler, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13833 (D.Nev. Feb. 1, 2017). Defendant was arrested for bank robbery, and a search incident to arrest of his person was valid and based on … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Search incident | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Untimely motion to suppress summarily denied

M.D.La.: Officer’s claim of a burglary in progress and that a protective sweep was justified was completely unjustified

It should have been apparent to the officers that the defendant was a friend of the homeowner and was a guest in the premises, and their entry was unjustified under a claim of a burglary in progress or that a … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Officer’s claim of a burglary in progress and that a protective sweep was justified was completely unjustified

MA: There is no requirement of a search protocol in the SW but it is advisable to restrain execution in computer searches

An IP address as a source of child pornography provides sufficient probable cause and nexus to search the subscriber’s home and computer. There are no search protocols for the warrant but it is advisable to use them. An administrative subpoena … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches | Comments Off on MA: There is no requirement of a search protocol in the SW but it is advisable to restrain execution in computer searches

W.D.Pa.: Mere shareholder in a business had no standing to challenge SW

As a mere shareholder in a business, defendant had no standing to challenge the search warrant of the property. At the time of the search, he had no personal interest in it. United States v. Taylor, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Mere shareholder in a business had no standing to challenge SW

NM: No proof of common authority for consent by an occasional visitor; state doesn’t recognize apparent authority

The evidence did not show the consenter had common authority, and New Mexico does not recognize apparent authority. The exception for protective sweep and the community caretaking function also didn’t apply because there was no bona fide need for either. … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Consent, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on NM: No proof of common authority for consent by an occasional visitor; state doesn’t recognize apparent authority

OH10: Officers could open defendant’s car door when he was apparently passed out in the front seat

Officers could open defendant’s car door when he was apparently passed out in the front seat. State v. Hall, 2017-Ohio-446, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 441 (10th Dist. Feb. 7, 2017):

Posted in Community caretaking function | Comments Off on OH10: Officers could open defendant’s car door when he was apparently passed out in the front seat