Daily Archives: January 5, 2020

LA Times: Black drivers face more police stops in California, state analysis shows

LA Times: Black drivers face more police stops in California, state analysis shows by Anita Chabria (“Black drivers in some of California’s largest cities are stopped and searched by police at higher rates than white and Latino motorists, according to … Continue reading

Posted in Police misconduct, Pretext | Comments Off on LA Times: Black drivers face more police stops in California, state analysis shows

The Recorder/Law.com: Ring Slapped With Lawsuit Following Reports of Camera Security Breaches

The Recorder/Law.com: Ring Slapped With Lawsuit Following Reports of Camera Security Breaches by Alaina Lancaster (“Despite Amazon-owned Ring’s suite of security offerings, the federal complaint contends that the company has failed to set up ‘even basic cybersecurity protections.’”)

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on The Recorder/Law.com: Ring Slapped With Lawsuit Following Reports of Camera Security Breaches

NM: Officer’s inferences for RS don’t require certainty

Reasonable suspicion was found here on the totality from experience, logical inferences, and the high-crime nature of the area where it was going on. “[W]hile it was possible Martinez’s conduct was innocuous, Officer Garrison was not required to wait until … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NM: Officer’s inferences for RS don’t require certainty

D.Neb.: Handcuffing on RS to assure safety and maintain the status quo reasonable and not a de facto arrest

Handcuffing a person on reasonable suspicion just to protect the officer’s safety and maintain the status quo is not unreasonable. United States v. Mayfield, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 520 (D. Neb. Jan. 3, 2020). While the exclusionary rule can apply … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Forfeiture, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Handcuffing on RS to assure safety and maintain the status quo reasonable and not a de facto arrest

CA11: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to revocation of supervised release; SCOTUS would so hold

The exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release conditions. While SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on that precise question, its parole and probation search cases are a clear sign it will follow them there. United States v. Hill, 2020 … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA11: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to revocation of supervised release; SCOTUS would so hold