Daily Archives: January 28, 2018

OH5: Meeting drug buyer, going home, returning to the place of sale was nexus to house

Defendant met a drug buyer, drove to his house, and reunited with the buyer for the transaction. This gives sufficient probable cause for nexus to house. State v. Detamore, 2018-Ohio-297, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 274 (5th Dist. Jan. 25, 2018). … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Nexus | Comments Off

CO: Def had no REP in the GPS his bondsman made him wear

The defendant was on bail, and his bondsman monitored him by GPS. The police obtained the GPS information to connect him to another crime. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the bondsman’s GPS. People v. Campbell, 2018 COA … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off

CA9: Police officers have no REP in their own body camera videos

Police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their own body camera videos. Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1980 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018):

Posted in Body cameras, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off

ME: Inevitable discovery doctrine doesn’t provide an incentive for police misconduct

The drugs here would have been inevitably found one way or the other. The inevitable discovery rule doesn’t provide the police an incentive to not comply with Fourth Amendment protections. State v. Prinkleton, 2018 ME 16, 2018 Me. LEXIS 15 … Continue reading

Posted in Inevitable discovery | Comments Off

Cal.5th: SVP’s dorm is virtually like a prison cell subject to random warrantless searches

Defendant is a sexually violent predator (SVP), and he’s institutionalized. His custodial status shares all the attributes of being in prison, including institutional security. The only place an SVP could hide child pornography is in his dormitory room. His room … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches | Comments Off

CA4: Playpen SW sustained

Playpen warrants (where the seized server was in the Eastern District of Virginia) were valid, and the good faith exception applied because it wasn’t readily apparent that the USMJ exceeded his or her jurisdiction or that that would be a … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception | Comments Off