Daily Archives: January 27, 2020

techdirt: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed

techdirt: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed by Tim Cushing:

Posted in Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on techdirt: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed

D.Mont.: “he’s not fucking here—go fucking look” was consent to enter

The government met its burden of proof that defendants consented to entry into their house to look for a wanted man by their saying “he’s not fucking here—go fucking look” and “he’s not fucking in there—go ahead.” United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Search incident | Comments Off on D.Mont.: “he’s not fucking here—go fucking look” was consent to enter

Bloomberg Law: INSIGHT: State Investigations—50 Takes on Subpoena, Privilege, Document Rules

Bloomberg Law: INSIGHT: State Investigations—50 Takes on Subpoena, Privilege, Document Rules by Brendan Parets:

Posted in Privileges, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on Bloomberg Law: INSIGHT: State Investigations—50 Takes on Subpoena, Privilege, Document Rules

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