Daily Archives: January 19, 2018

CA11: Def argued there was no authority for use of a cell site simulator to track him; police had a tracking warrant issued on PC, and that’s all that’s required

Defendant was arrested coming out of a Dollar General Store, and officers smelled marijuana around his car. Even though defendant wasn’t in it, the car was still “mobile” for automobile exception purposes, and the smell provided probable cause. Defendant also … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Stingray / Hailstorm, Tracking warrant | Comments Off

FL3: Warrantless blood test justified by exigency where it was 4:22 am Sunday and it would take 4 hours to get SW

Exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood test because defendant’s accident occurred at approximately 4:22 a.m. on a Sunday, the accident was serious, resulting in an instantaneous death, defendant himself was seriously injured, taken to a hospital for treatment, and induced … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off

OH12: When state SCt denies review of 4A claim, it’s law of the case on remand

After the state supreme court denied discretionary review of the search issue, the lower court ruling became law of the case, and the suppression hearing couldn’t be reopened. State v. Raphael, 2018-Ohio-140, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 140 (12th Dist. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

MN: Order to provide a fingerprint to unlock a cell phone is not testimonial and thus not barred by the 5A

An order to provide a fingerprint to unlock a cell phone is not testimonial and thus not barred by the Fifth Amendment. State v. Diamond, 2018 Minn. LEXIS 7 (Jan. 17, 2018):

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off

CA6: Computers, like guns, are usually kept at home, and that’s nexus for search of house for a computer [!?]

A computer, like a gun, is usually kept in the home, and a search warrant for a computer establishes nexus to search defendant’s house[!, really?]. Thus, there was no Fourth Amendment violation and alternatively there was qualified immunity. Peffer v. … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Nexus | Comments Off

CA11: Mistake in apt number in SW wasn’t fatal flaw because of “rich detail” describing the apt door

The search warrant had the wrong apartment number, but the location of the apartment was described in “rich detail,” including that the door had numerous stickers. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search warrant. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Particularity | Comments Off