Daily Archives: May 10, 2018

CA4: Forensic border search of cell phone “non-routine” but GFE applies

An intensive forensic search of an outbound noncitizen’s cell phone required at least reasonable suspicion and maybe a warrant under Riley. Case law, however, uniformly says not at the time this happened, so the search is valid under the good … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA4: Forensic border search of cell phone “non-routine” but GFE applies

CA11: Interrupted residential burglary is exigency for police entry and search

“Police officers interrupt what they reasonably believe to be a residential burglary and detain two suspects just outside the house. Having done so, can the officers thereafter lawfully enter the home—without a warrant, and without further suspicion of wrongdoing—to briefly … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA11: Interrupted residential burglary is exigency for police entry and search

VA: Stop outside officer’s jurisdiction not subject to suppression

Defendant was seen speeding by a VMI police officer who followed him. The actual stop was off the campus. There was probable cause for the stop and arrest, and, even if the officer was outside his jurisdiction, suppression is not … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on VA: Stop outside officer’s jurisdiction not subject to suppression

D.Minn.: 5 uncorroborated anonymous callers wasn’t PC

Five anonymous callers claimed defendant was selling drugs. “The Government’s argument is unavailing because, as [USM] Judge Brisbois observed, ‘[i]t is objectively unreasonable for an officer with over 10 years of experience to present a search warrant affidavit to a … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Minn.: 5 uncorroborated anonymous callers wasn’t PC

OH12: Def’s claim judge didn’t sign SW has zero evidentiary support

The defendant contended that the judge’s signature on the search warrant was false. The only testimony at the suppression hearing was that the judge signed it at home. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding. State v. Clayton, 2018-Ohio-1777, 2018 … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on OH12: Def’s claim judge didn’t sign SW has zero evidentiary support