Monthly Archives: January 2020

OR: Car owner had no REP from GPS installed by his company before he got the car from them

Plaintiff worked for Toyota Motor Credit and Toyota Financial Services. When he severed his employment with them, he was allowed to keep the vehicle he used for them. Unbeknownst to him, Toyota Financial Services had a GPS device on the … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on OR: Car owner had no REP from GPS installed by his company before he got the car from them

FL5: Appellate counsel in direct appeal was ineffective for not arguing automobile exception wasn’t applicable; if it had been argued, court would have reversed

In defendant’s original appeal, appellate counsel argued only that the search incident doctrine applied and he failed on that issue. On post-conviction, however, new counsel argued that the automobile exception should have been argued and that it did not apply … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on FL5: Appellate counsel in direct appeal was ineffective for not arguing automobile exception wasn’t applicable; if it had been argued, court would have reversed

CA1: Franks offer of proof didn’t show materiality or undermine PC

Defendant’s appeal is based on his claim that the district court erred in not holding a Franks hearing. Defendant didn’t show enough in his allegations to show that the omissions were material to the showing of probable cause. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras | Comments Off on CA1: Franks offer of proof didn’t show materiality or undermine PC

D.Mont.: Def was arrested for DUI; so, already detained, a dog sniff wasn’t unreasonable

Defendant was arrested for DUI, and the court finds, based on United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1350 (10th Cir. 1998), that “detention of the driver at the scene to accomplish a canine sniff is generally reasonable where the … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonableness, Search incident | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Def was arrested for DUI; so, already detained, a dog sniff wasn’t unreasonable

WHYY: The Pa. State Police was warned about possible racial bias in car searches. The agency’s answer? End the research.

WHYY: The Pa. State Police was warned about possible racial bias in car searches. The agency’s answer? End the research. By Daniel Simmons-Ritchie and Angela Couloumbis, Spotlight PA (“Last fall, under scrutiny for its decision years earlier to stop tracking … Continue reading

Posted in Pretext | Comments Off on WHYY: The Pa. State Police was warned about possible racial bias in car searches. The agency’s answer? End the research.

PA: Realtime CSLI also subject to Carpenter; orders here under state wiretap act complied with 4A

The state obtained realtime CSLI with court orders under the state wiretapping statute, and these orders were sufficiently like search warrants under Dalia v. United States. (Carpenter was decided while his case was on appeal.) The court finds that the … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information | Comments Off on PA: Realtime CSLI also subject to Carpenter; orders here under state wiretap act complied with 4A

OH6: Checking DMV records involves no 4A intrustion

“[T]he law is clear that a police officer’s check of a person’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles records does not implicate Fourth Amendment rights, as it does not constitute an invasion as it involves no intrusion.” State v. Price, 2020-Ohio-220, 2020 … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on OH6: Checking DMV records involves no 4A intrustion

D.R.I.: Carpenter procedural and not substantive and not a “new rule” under Teague

Carpenter is not entitled to retroactive application to post-conviction cases under Teague. It is procedural, not substantive. United States v. Sandoval, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11281 (D.R.I. Jan. 23, 2020):

Posted in Cell site location information | Comments Off on D.R.I.: Carpenter procedural and not substantive and not a “new rule” under Teague

NYTimes: Have a Search Warrant for Data? Google Wants You to Pay

NYTimes: Have a Search Warrant for Data? Google Wants You to Pay by Gabriel J.X. Dance and Jennifer Valentino-DeVries (“The tech giant has begun charging U.S. law enforcement for responses to search warrants and subpoenas.”): Facing an increasing number of … Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on NYTimes: Have a Search Warrant for Data? Google Wants You to Pay

OH8: Seat belt ordinance permissible under police power

A seat belt ordinance (as well as state law on the subject) is a proper exercise of police power for which a traffic stop may occur when an officer sees an occupant without a seat belt on. City of South … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on OH8: Seat belt ordinance permissible under police power

CA10: NM metropolitan courts can issue SWs; they’re not governed by Rule 41, just the 4A

The New Mexico metropolitan court had jurisdiction to issue search warrants even though it had no general jurisdiction over felony cases. A state issued search warrant doesn’t need to comply with Rule 41; it only need comply with the Fourth … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on CA10: NM metropolitan courts can issue SWs; they’re not governed by Rule 41, just the 4A

M.D.La.: Merely being a CI doesn’t make the CI a “participant” in the crime for disclosure

Merely being a CI for the police doesn’t make the CI a participant in the crime to make his or her identity subject to disclosure. United States v. Westbrook, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10563 (M.D. La. Jan. 22, 2020). The … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on M.D.La.: Merely being a CI doesn’t make the CI a “participant” in the crime for disclosure

Iowa’s cases from Thursday

There was probable cause based on the dashcam video for defendant’s stop for not having two functioning headlights. “Here, what the video evidence shows is unquestionably open to interpretation as to whether the headlight was inoperable or just dim. Whatever … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Iowa’s cases from Thursday

CA7: Ptf’s suit for arrest for possession and obstruction was barred by arguable PC

Plaintiff was arrested for possession of cocaine and obstructing justice when he allegedly swallowed the baggie of drugs. He was taken to a hospital and drank charcoal and other liquids to pass it and he was x-rayed. Nothing was recovered. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Collective knowledge, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA7: Ptf’s suit for arrest for possession and obstruction was barred by arguable PC

W.D.Ky.: An open container doesn’t permit a search of an entire car under automobile exception or search incident

An open container in a car doesn’t grant the police the authority to search the entire vehicle for another open container. It is implausible to believe that another would be found outside of the passenger compartment. United States v. Thomas, … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Search incident | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: An open container doesn’t permit a search of an entire car under automobile exception or search incident

CA9: Vacated and dismissed case on post-conviction doesn’t invoke Heck bar

Three men convicted in Alaska state court got their convictions vacated and dismissed when someone else confessed to the crime. The lack of a criminal judgment rendered the Heck bar inapplicable. Roberts v. City of Fairbanks, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abstention | Comments Off on CA9: Vacated and dismissed case on post-conviction doesn’t invoke Heck bar

D.N.M.: “Brady does not require the United States to disclose impeachment evidence before suppression hearings.”

“Brady does not require the United States to disclose impeachment evidence before suppression hearings.” United States v. Deleon, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9688 (D.N.M. Jan. 21, 2020). Defendant’s motion to suppress for lack of nexus between defendant’s home and possession … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Nexus | Comments Off on D.N.M.: “Brady does not require the United States to disclose impeachment evidence before suppression hearings.”

S.D.W.Va.: Reasonable mistake of fact def’s license was invalid doesn’t void the stop; smell of MJ led to search

The officer’s reasonable mistake of fact defendant’s license was invalid doesn’t void the stop. “In sum, Detective Maniskas was sufficiently diligent in his investigation of Qualls’ licenses. The fact that Qualls’ license was actually valid has no impact on Maniskas’ … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Reasonableness | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Reasonable mistake of fact def’s license was invalid doesn’t void the stop; smell of MJ led to search

OH5: Officer’s entry into garage following erratic driver was justified as a welfare check on condition of driver, even though she was helped into the house

The officer’s entry into defendant’s garage after the car was parked askew and the door left open justified a welfare check at the door of the house. The officer responded to a 911 call about an erratic driver, and he … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function | Comments Off on OH5: Officer’s entry into garage following erratic driver was justified as a welfare check on condition of driver, even though she was helped into the house

CA11: No justification is needed for a jail booking strip search

No justification is needed for a jail booking strip search. [The court alludes to what might possibly be some factual justification but doesn’t say that it was.] Watkins v. Pinnock, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1881 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2020). … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Prison and jail searches, Strip search | Comments Off on CA11: No justification is needed for a jail booking strip search