Daily Archives: September 29, 2024

AR & PA: Def’s statements at time of search used at trial

Defendant’s DNA was taken by warrant at the jail, and his admissions about the offense during that captured on bodycam were admitted at trial. There was no questioning; it was voluntary. Torres v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 457 (Sep. 25, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Custody, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on AR & PA: Def’s statements at time of search used at trial

N.D.Tex.: GFE applies, but PC, too

The affidavit for the warrant here is more than “bare bones” so the good faith exception applies. “Even if the good-faith exception did not apply, the warrant is still valid because it is supported by probable cause.” United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Good faith exception, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: GFE applies, but PC, too

FL4: REP in Facebook private messages

(1) Florida’s 4th DCA finds a reasonable expectation of privacy in Facebook private messages as analogous to cell phone text messages. (2) When the records were seized under a warrant for a theft, they couldn’t be searched for evidence of … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Scope of search, Social media warrants | Comments Off on FL4: REP in Facebook private messages

M.D.Pa.: No constitutional requirement to get arrest warrant for misdemeanor committed in officer’s presence

There is no constitutional requirement for an officer to get an arrest warrant to arrest based on a misdemeanor committed in his presence. The common law says the officer can. United States v. Alvarez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172609 (M.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Community caretaking function, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: No constitutional requirement to get arrest warrant for misdemeanor committed in officer’s presence

OR: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to criminally dangerous person civil commitments

Neither the state nor federal exclusionary rule does not apply in criminal dangerous person civil commitments. State v. T.L.B. (In re T.L.B.), 335 Or. App. 225 (Sep. 25, 2024). The officer here saw defendant walking at night in a neighborhood … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Consent, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OR: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to criminally dangerous person civil commitments