Daily Archives: August 3, 2018

M.D.Tenn.: Def’s continual distancing himself in pleadings and at hearing from the cell phone at issue shows no standing

Defendant went to great lengths to distance himself from telephone 3 that was tracked in the suppression motion and hearing. Therefore, he has no standing to challenge the collection of CSLI on it. Carpenter and Byrd do not, as defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: Def’s continual distancing himself in pleadings and at hearing from the cell phone at issue shows no standing

D.D.C.: Def’s IAC claim a Stingray was used was speculative at best; govt already had plenty from lawful sources

Even if a Stingray was used to get defendant’s information, which is speculative at best, the government lawfully used a host of other information gathering devices and orders to get the same information. Therefore, he wasn’t prejudiced. IAC claim denied. … Continue reading

Posted in Stingray / Hailstorm | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Def’s IAC claim a Stingray was used was speculative at best; govt already had plenty from lawful sources

ID: Cell seizure of def’s notes for conversation with defense lawyer presumptively prejudicial; remanded to see if state can overcome prejudice and whether DA disqualified

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder. “While he was incarcerated prior to trial, Robins’s cell was searched and handwritten notes he had prepared in anticipation of a meeting with counsel were seized and delivered to the prosecuting attorney. The district … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Privileges | Comments Off on ID: Cell seizure of def’s notes for conversation with defense lawyer presumptively prejudicial; remanded to see if state can overcome prejudice and whether DA disqualified

IL: To argue defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing “seizure” instead of “search” is frivolous here

Defendant claimed his counsel was ineffective for not arguing the seizure was unreasonable rather than the search. That’s frivolous. People v. Lee, 2018 IL App (3d) 160100, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 569 (Aug. 1, 2018). [I had the same argument … Continue reading

Posted in Seizure | Comments Off on IL: To argue defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing “seizure” instead of “search” is frivolous here

CA11: Officer’s slight misnaming prior sex offense against a child in a CP warrant affidavit wasn’t a Franks violation

Petitioner raised 78 grounds in his 2255 against a life sentence for child pornography. “As to Ground 6, Freeman’s various arguments largely mischaracterize the supposedly false statements in the warrant affidavit. And although the affidavit seemingly incorrectly stated that his … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA11: Officer’s slight misnaming prior sex offense against a child in a CP warrant affidavit wasn’t a Franks violation

C.D.Ill.: 18 month pole camera surveillance of def’s house didn’t violate REP

18 month pole camera surveillance of defendant’s house didn’t violate his reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Tuggle, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127333 (C.D. Ill. July 31, 2018):

Posted in Pole cameras, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: 18 month pole camera surveillance of def’s house didn’t violate REP

NY3: Cell phone SW must be based on fact and inference, not just “common sense”

A search warrant for a cell phone must be based on fact and inference not just on “common sense.” People v. Jemmott, 2018 NY Slip Op 05632, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5576 (3d Dept. Aug. 2, 2018). The application … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Probable cause | Comments Off on NY3: Cell phone SW must be based on fact and inference, not just “common sense”

S.D.Ala.: That state court warrant was missing two pages when filed doesn’t matter when the whole SW produced in federal court

The search warrant was issued by a state court, and two pages were missing from the filed version. The complete version was presented in federal court, and the fact part was missing in state court is not a Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: That state court warrant was missing two pages when filed doesn’t matter when the whole SW produced in federal court