Daily Archives: May 27, 2018

NYTimes: Can 30,000 Cameras Help Solve Chicago’s Crime Problem?

NYTimes: Can 30,000 Cameras Help Solve Chicago’s Crime Problem? By Timothy Williams Armed with advanced gadgets and mapping, officers can get to crime scenes “in time to see the guy still shooting.” But what does it mean for residents’ privacy? … Continue reading

Posted in Pole cameras, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on NYTimes: Can 30,000 Cameras Help Solve Chicago’s Crime Problem?

FL4: State law doesn’t bar officer from getting SW out of jurisdiction

State law does not limit a law enforcement officer from applying for a search warrant outside the officer’s territorial jurisdiction. [Neither does the Fourth Amendment, but it isn’t even cited.] State v. Stouffer, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 7274 (Fla. 4th … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant requirement | Comments Off on FL4: State law doesn’t bar officer from getting SW out of jurisdiction

D.Mont.: No SW needed for non-tribal officer to enter a reservation

The search here was in a remote area on the Crow Nation. First, officers had exigency because it was cold, raining, and getting dark, and evidence might be lost. Also, defendant was abandoned there by his assault victim, and he … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Mont.: No SW needed for non-tribal officer to enter a reservation

W.D.N.C.: RS applied to the car def got into despite the fact he wasn’t there when an occupant hid a gun

Officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective weapons search of the car defendant came out of a motel and got into. While watching the car, before defendant was there, officers saw a juvenile hiding a gun under the floor … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: RS applied to the car def got into despite the fact he wasn’t there when an occupant hid a gun

S.D.Ga.: Failure to describe a CI as a “paid informant” isn’t material; every CI has a reason for providing information

Failure to describe the CI as a “paid informant” doesn’t undermine his credibility. Every issuing magistrate should know that a CI has some motive for providing information, be it money or leniency. United States v. Mobley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Failure to describe a CI as a “paid informant” isn’t material; every CI has a reason for providing information