Daily Archives: March 15, 2017

D.Mont.: Def’s live-in girlfriend’s consent was enough to expand the SW beyond its particularity; she volunteered something police weren’t even looking for

Defendant had an argument with his live-in girlfriend which escalated about the time the police arrived to hear it outside. They got a search warrant for his handgun, some papers, and her belongings to help her get out. She assisted … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Scope of search | Comments Off

NACDL Report: Policing Body Cameras: Policies and Procedures to Safeguard the Rights of the Accused.

Washington, DC (Mar. 15, 2017) — The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), with support from the Foundation for Criminal Justice (FCJ), today releases Policing Body Cameras: Policies and Procedures to Safeguard the Rights of the Accused. This report … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras | Comments Off

CAAFlog: Argument Preview: Considering whether the Fourth Amendment requires a temporal limitation for a search in United States v. Richards, No. 16-0727/AF

CAAFlog: Argument Preview: Considering whether the Fourth Amendment requires a temporal limitation for a search in United States v. Richards, No. 16-0727/AF by Zachary D Spilman:

Posted in Warrant requirement | Comments Off

S.D.Ala.: Hitting fog line 8 times is reason for a stop even if it doesn’t necessarily violation AL law

Touching the fog line once isn’t an offense (and dozens of cases are cited), but eight times is reasonable suspicion for a stop and at least justifies it under Heien: “While the Court questions whether touching or slightly crossing a … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonableness | Comments Off

D.Conn.: Protective weapons search of nightstand for a weapon invalid where def removed from house in handcuffs

The court does not believe an officer who claimed to have seen crack cocaine in a black opaque drawstring bag that was closed in the first search of his person. The court also does not believe that a much later … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off