Daily Archives: November 5, 2019

W.D.Ky.: Officer’s verifying def’s identity reasonably extended the stop

The extension of the stop wasn’t based on reasonable suspicion; it was the officer trying to determine why defendant’s license was revoked and whether defendant was who he said he was. “Under these circumstances, it is clear that the mission … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Officer’s verifying def’s identity reasonably extended the stop

W.D.Mo.: Officer’s limited knowledge of Spanish still enabled her consent

Defendant claimed a lack of consent due to a language barrier. The court finds one officer was proficient enough in Spanish to effectively communicate the request for consent. United States v. Molina-Lopez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191087 (W.D. Mo. Sept. … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Consent | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Officer’s limited knowledge of Spanish still enabled her consent

Reason: Volokh Conspiracy: Impressions from the oral argument in Kansas v. Glover

Reason: Volokh Conspiracy: Impressions from the oral argument in Kansas v. Glover by Orin S. Kerr On reasonable suspicion and how to calculate it.

Posted in Reasonableness | Comments Off on Reason: Volokh Conspiracy: Impressions from the oral argument in Kansas v. Glover

CA9: Use of another’s wireless router was not protected by any REP; police tracked def with Moocherhunter

After child pornography was found exchanged on a peer-to-peer connection from a specific IP address, government agents got a search warrant for that home address in apartment 242. Once there, they determined that no devices there were involved. They found, … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA9: Use of another’s wireless router was not protected by any REP; police tracked def with Moocherhunter

N.D.Iowa: There was no RS as to def who was talking with another for whom there was; def should have been allowed to leave

When one defendant wanted to leave the encounter with the police, there was no reasonable suspicion for his patdown and he should have been allowed to leave without the patdown. United States v. Steffens, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190597 (N.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: There was no RS as to def who was talking with another for whom there was; def should have been allowed to leave

MI S.Ct. grants review in interesting cell phone search issue, particularly whether PC and search in a prior case applies to a later case

The Michigan Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, appoints the State Appellate Defender Office, and directs the following cell phone search questions be briefed in People v. Hughes, 2019 Mich. LEXIS 2094 (Nov. 1, 2019):*

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on MI S.Ct. grants review in interesting cell phone search issue, particularly whether PC and search in a prior case applies to a later case

D.Idaho: Failure to tell USMJ that a trash pull came up empty wasn’t material when there was more that did show PC; wouldn’t have changed outcome

Omission to tell the USMJ that a trash search of defendant’s house came up empty didn’t undermine the other probable cause, wouldn’t have changed the outcome, and wasn’t a Franks issue. The same here about defendant’s alleged travels: Omissions don’t … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Failure to tell USMJ that a trash pull came up empty wasn’t material when there was more that did show PC; wouldn’t have changed outcome

CA7: Trying and losing a 4A claim in state court precludes § 1983 case over same issue

Plaintiff was arrested for drunk driving and convicted in local court after raising his Fourth Amendment claim there. He sued everybody involved in his arrest. The court finds him precluded from relitigating it in federal court under § 1983. Novotny … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA7: Trying and losing a 4A claim in state court precludes § 1983 case over same issue