Daily Archives: January 26, 2020

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