Daily Archives: April 25, 2022

VI: Procedural errors in telephonic SW not suppressible without recklessness or bad faith

The procedural deficiencies in obtaining the telephonic warrants did not render them invalid. There was no showing of bad faith by the officers. People v. Glasford, 2022 VI SUPER 42, 2022 V.I. LEXIS 40 (Apr. 19, 2022). A person detained … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Voluntariness | Comments Off on VI: Procedural errors in telephonic SW not suppressible without recklessness or bad faith

N.D.Ala.: Imprecision in the SW affidavit isn’t a Franks violation

Imprecision in the affiant investigator’s words doesn’t equate to recklessness for Franks purposes. United States v. Tubbs, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73473 (N.D.Ala. Mar. 14, 2022).* Defendant’s alleged Franks violation wasn’t even material based on all the evidence that the … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Imprecision in the SW affidavit isn’t a Franks violation

OH1: GPS pings on stolen vehicle led to attempted knock-and-talk and observation of its tracks

Officers following a GPS ping on stolen vehicle with off-road tires came to defendant’s home for a knock-and-talk. Receiving no answer, the officer followed the driveway and saw three storage buildings. “Because the driveway is open to the public and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Curtilage, Knock and talk, Waiver | Comments Off on OH1: GPS pings on stolen vehicle led to attempted knock-and-talk and observation of its tracks

CA7: There is no “one-frisk-only rule”

“‘[A] one-frisk-only rule would create a privacy-adverse Fourth Amendment incentive’ for officers to perform ‘the most intrusive frisk possible the first time around, knowing that no more would be allowed.’” Here, there was reasonable suspicion for both frisks. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident | Comments Off on CA7: There is no “one-frisk-only rule”