Daily Archives: February 10, 2019

S.D.N.Y.: Destruction of surveillance cameras before search not a “seizure” or due process violation

The government destroyed defendant’s surveillance cameras as a part of the search just before it started. He asserts a Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process claim as a result. The court finds no authority that disabling the cameras was … Continue reading

Posted in Due process, Seizure | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Destruction of surveillance cameras before search not a “seizure” or due process violation

Law & Crime: North Carolina Sheriffs Clash With ICE Officials After Series of Unwanted Immigration Raids

Law & Crime: North Carolina Sheriffs Clash With ICE Officials After Series of Unwanted Immigration Raids by Colin Kalmbacher:

Posted in Immigration arrests | Comments Off on Law & Crime: North Carolina Sheriffs Clash With ICE Officials After Series of Unwanted Immigration Raids

N.D.Okla.: “firearms are tangible objects of habitual retention” and that overcomes def’s staleness argument

“Officer Campbell averred that, based on her experience and training, she knows that firearms are tangible objects of habitual retention, and once a person acquires a firearm, he or she usually keeps said weapon for a long period of time.” … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: “firearms are tangible objects of habitual retention” and that overcomes def’s staleness argument

D.D.C.: Protective order issued to keep def from seeing body camera videos in discovery

There were several body camera videos relating to this case as well as the search and seizure. The issue here is the scope of a protective order to keep defendant from seeing. The government met its burden of showing good … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Cell site location information, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Protective order issued to keep def from seeing body camera videos in discovery

WA: State attenuation is more narrow than the 4A’s, and here it wasn’t satisfied

The attenuation doctrine applies under the Washington Constitution, but it is more narrowly applied than the Fourth Amendment’s. Here is it not satisfied, and there are no intervening circumstances. State v. Mayfield, 2019 Wash. LEXIS 70 (Feb. 7, 2019):

Posted in Attenuation, State constitution | Comments Off on WA: State attenuation is more narrow than the 4A’s, and here it wasn’t satisfied

W.D.N.Y.: No IAC for trial strategy def had nothing to do with house, which denies him standing to contest search

Defendant disavowed any connection at trial to a particular house as a trial strategy. Thus, it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to suppress the search of a house he thus lacked standing in–defendant would not have … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: No IAC for trial strategy def had nothing to do with house, which denies him standing to contest search