Monthly Archives: January 2019

AR: Isolated comment at trial from police witness defendant wouldn’t give up cell phone password didn’t require reversal; jury admonished on right not to

An isolated trial comment from a witness that the officer couldn’t access a cell phone without the password wasn’t prejudicial. Also, the parties agreed that an admonition that defendant had a constitutional right to not give it was given. Lewis … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on AR: Isolated comment at trial from police witness defendant wouldn’t give up cell phone password didn’t require reversal; jury admonished on right not to

CA5: 9 day delay in getting SW for cell phone wasn’t unreasonable

The search warrant reasonably authorized seizure of defendant’s cell phone but not its search. The nine day delay in getting the search warrant for the phone was not unreasonable. The court declines to adopt a bright line rule and goes … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on CA5: 9 day delay in getting SW for cell phone wasn’t unreasonable

CA6: No showing insurance company’s investigative report was cause of his arrest; also didn’t plead state action

Plaintiff sued his insurance company for participating in his false arrest because they submitted their own investigative file to law enforcement. There is no evidence that law enforcement didn’t conduct its own independent analysis of what they received. In addition, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA6: No showing insurance company’s investigative report was cause of his arrest; also didn’t plead state action

CA2: Def parole officer gets QI on whether 4A or NY case law applies to parole search

Plaintiff was subjected to a parole search, and he contended New York law applied rather than Samson et al. The officer gets qualified immunity on the question because it appears Samson should but we don’t even need to resolve it. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA2: Def parole officer gets QI on whether 4A or NY case law applies to parole search

N.D.Ala.: No Franks proffer so motion fails

“In this case, the defendant has not attempted to make any preliminary showing that the information contained in the application/affidavit was knowingly or recklessly false. The closest he comes to doing so is the assertion that the application/affidavit avers that … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: No Franks proffer so motion fails

N.D.Tex.: 2254 habeas 4A IAC claim denied; state court applied right rules and finding not objectively unreasonable

Defendant’s federal habeas is denied on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as to his search. “The state court applied the proper legal standard and, deferring to the state court’s factual findings, including the court’s credibility determinations, the court’s … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: 2254 habeas 4A IAC claim denied; state court applied right rules and finding not objectively unreasonable

PA: There’s no right to a warning before fleeing from the police during a stop

Defendant had no right to a warning before he fled from police when he was stopped. “Here, as a practical matter, it is not all clear that police had a reasonable opportunity to issue Dunham verbal commands directing his movement. … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on PA: There’s no right to a warning before fleeing from the police during a stop

N.D.Ind.: Halfway litigating a motion to suppress in state court is collateral estoppel to later suit

Defendant first litigated his suppression issue in state court and lost. He didn’t appeal, and it became final. That’s collateral estoppel to a civil case over the same search. Freeman v. Indiana, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13863 (N.D. Ind. Jan. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Halfway litigating a motion to suppress in state court is collateral estoppel to later suit

D.Minn.: Govt showed nexus to def’s cell phones in vehicle involved in a shooting

Defendant’s vehicle was factually connected to a shooting incident, and that gave probable cause to search it under the automobile exception. There was nexus to defendant’s cell phones found in the vehicle to get a separate search warrant for them. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Nexus | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Govt showed nexus to def’s cell phones in vehicle involved in a shooting

S.D.Ill.: Merely living in a house and being alleged to be a criminal doesn’t create nexus; more is required, and the govt had it here

It is settled in this circuit that merely because a person lives in a house doesn’t create a nexus to the house for crime; more is required. Here, the government gets over that hurdle. Defendant was overheard talking about having … Continue reading

Posted in Nexus, Social media warrants, Staleness | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Merely living in a house and being alleged to be a criminal doesn’t create nexus; more is required, and the govt had it here

CA4: Bodycam video shows consent to enter and statement made were voluntary

The government had consent to enter defendant’s home, and he was convicted of illegal entry and deported. The bodycam video supports the finding of voluntary consent. United States v. Azua-Rinconada, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2783 (4th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019):

Posted in Body cameras, Consent | Comments Off on CA4: Bodycam video shows consent to enter and statement made were voluntary

D.Minn.: Def’s Franks challenge had no offer of proof and thus was a mere complaint without support

Defendant’s Franks challenge to the search warrant wasn’t specific and was actually a mere “complain[t]” without an offer of proof, and that’s just not enough. United States v. Yackel, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12819 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2019)*:

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Def’s Franks challenge had no offer of proof and thus was a mere complaint without support