Daily Archives: December 30, 2020

NYTimes: Another Arrest, and Jail Time, Due to a Bad Facial Recognition Match

NYTimes: Another Arrest, and Jail Time, Due to a Bad Facial Recognition Match by Kashmir Hill (“Nijeer Parks is the third person known to be arrested for a crime he did not commit based on a bad face recognition match.”)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on NYTimes: Another Arrest, and Jail Time, Due to a Bad Facial Recognition Match

CA3: No REP in cell phone subscriber records

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone subscriber information such that a warrant is required to obtain it v. a subpoena duces tecum. United States v. Brooks, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40561 (3d Cir. Dec. 29, 2020). … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on CA3: No REP in cell phone subscriber records

OH3: When state appeals dismissal for pretrial delay, def can’t appeal denial of suppression motion

Denial of a motion to suppress is not immediately appealable in Ohio. Here, there was an appealable pretrial issue of a grant of dismissal for pretrial delay, and the court finds the suppression issue was still viable and could be … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on OH3: When state appeals dismissal for pretrial delay, def can’t appeal denial of suppression motion

CA8: “where one draws the line between” independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines “is unimportant”

“Although the distinction between the independent-source and inevitable-discovery doctrines is not sharp …, where exactly one draws the line between the two doctrines is unimportant.” United States v. Baez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40551 (8th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020):

Posted in Independent source, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on CA8: “where one draws the line between” independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines “is unimportant”

CA9: The fact CBP had RS doesn’t mean it’s required for a border dog sniff

“The fact that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers had reasonable suspicion cannot serve to heighten the standard attached to the border search.” The use of a drug dog at the border doesn’t require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Meraz-Campos, … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Border search, Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA9: The fact CBP had RS doesn’t mean it’s required for a border dog sniff