Daily Archives: May 20, 2017

CA11: A police dog can’t be sued for excessive force under § 1983 or for negligence under state law

A police dog can’t be sued under § 1983, although the handler can. Here, the handler has qualified immunity for this use of force. Jones v. Fransen, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8816 (11th Cir. May 19, 2017):

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity | Comments Off

IA: Plain view of a baggie is enough to seize it without also knowing that there are drugs in it

Plain view of a plastic baggie is enough to seize it without also knowing that there are drugs in it. State v. Taylor, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 517 (May 17, 2017). Defendant’s speeding and his condition was reasonable suspicion for … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off

NYLJ: Computer Searches: A ‘General’ Warrant Can No Longer Satisfy Requirements

NYLJ: Computer Searches: A ‘General’ Warrant Can No Longer Satisfy Requirements by Roger L. Stavis (May 19, 2017):

Posted in Computer searches, General warrant | Comments Off

HI imposes triggering condition in anticipatory warrants under state constitution

“We are faced with a question of first impression for this court: Does the Hawai’i Constitution require that an anticipatory search warrant identify the triggering condition on the face of the warrant? In light of the privacy protections contained in … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, State constitution | Comments Off

N.D.N.Y.: Def’s prior drug involvement justified a drug search condition on supervised release

Defendant’s prior convictions for drugs from age 17-22 justified a drug search condition on supervised release. United States v. Betsy-Jones, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75157 (N.D. N.Y. April 28, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74113 (N.D. N.Y. May 16, … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Stop and frisk | Comments Off

M.D.Pa.: Def’s version in pro se motion to suppress used against him in third on credibility

Defendant files three motions to suppress. The first one was pro se and never mentioned that his stop was pretextual, that the headlights were actually on, and the stop was without reasonable suspicion. A later motion to suppress challenged the … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off