Daily Archives: January 11, 2019

Cert. granted: Mitchell v. Wisconsin: Warrantless blood draws from the unconscious

ScotusBlog: Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 18-6210 (granted Jan. 11, 2019). Issue: Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Posted here: WI: Drinking and driving until unconsciousness obviates def’s … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, SCOTUS | Comments Off on Cert. granted: Mitchell v. Wisconsin: Warrantless blood draws from the unconscious

techdirt: CBP Will Search You And Your Property If You’re Paying Too Much Attention To An Agent. Or Too Little.

techdirt: CBP Will Search You And Your Property If You’re Paying Too Much Attention To An Agent. Or Too Little. by Tim Cushing:

Posted in Border search | Comments Off on techdirt: CBP Will Search You And Your Property If You’re Paying Too Much Attention To An Agent. Or Too Little.

IA: PC for car search includes purse found in it

Probable cause for search of a car includes a woman’s purse found in the car. State v. Swenson, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 36 (Jan. 9, 2019). A dog sniff of a car doesn’t require reasonable suspicion or probable cause something … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Scope of search | Comments Off on IA: PC for car search includes purse found in it

S.D.Fla.: Observing MLAT search in Canada not enough to invoke “joint venture” doctrine

The government’s MLAT request to Canada to seize records there and then being there to observe for relevance of what was seized was not a “joint venture” when Canada acted on the request. A “joint venture” requires actual involvement, not … Continue reading

Posted in Foreign searches | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Observing MLAT search in Canada not enough to invoke “joint venture” doctrine

SCOTUS: In QI in excessive force cases, a “clearly established” right needs to be defined with specificity

In confronting qualified immunity in excessive force cases, a “clearly established” right needs to be defined with specificity. City of Escondido v. Emmons, 17-1660 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2019) (per curiam) [pdf at 27]:

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on SCOTUS: In QI in excessive force cases, a “clearly established” right needs to be defined with specificity

ABAJ: How to redact a PDF and protect your clients

ABAJ: How to redact a PDF and protect your clients by Jason Tashea:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on ABAJ: How to redact a PDF and protect your clients