Daily Archives: January 7, 2018

Ginsburg has hired law clerks through term ending 6/30/20

ATL: Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: New Year, New Hires by David Lat And some justices have already hired all their 2019-2020 clerks as well.

Posted in SCOTUS | Comments Off

D.Mont.: Asking the same question three times within five minutes during a traffic stop prolonged the stop, but with RS

Asking the same question three times within five minutes during a traffic stop prolonged the stop, but it was all with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Brooks, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1691 (D. Mont. Jan. 4, 2018). Defendant’s stop wasn’t … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Seizure | Comments Off

NM: Trial court found truth between dashcam video and the testimony of the officer and the def; still entitled to deference on appeal

The trial court considered the dashcam and the officer’s and defendant’s testimony because the dashcam wasn’t conclusive: “But I think it just goes to show you really need to review the video in every case. And in this case, after … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Standards of review | Comments Off

S.D.Cal.: Def’s substantial search claim was determinative of his conviction and bail would be granted pending sentencing

Defendant’s search issue is arguable and substantial and a question of first impression in this circuit, and the search claim is determinative of the conviction. This counsel’s in favor of granting release pending sentencing. United States v. Wilson, 2018 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

E.D.Cal.: Def’s actions and words during execution of warrant admissible to show consciousness of guilt

Defendant’s actions (his “encounter”), whatever it is isn’t described, with law enforcement officers when they executed the search warrant on his property are admissible to show consciousness of guilt. United States v. Hitt, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1856 (E.D. Cal. … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off

M.D.Fla.: There was RS for a dog sniff of a package in the mail, and the alert was PC for a SW; def’s motion to suppress suggested no standing

There was reasonable suspicion to detain a package in the mail for a dog sniff because of the way it was packaged and labeled suggested that it contained drugs. After the dog alert, there was a necessary delay in obtaining … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off