Daily Archives: October 26, 2024

S.D.Ill.: Merely possessing a firearm in a high crime area is not RS

The officer putting a gun to defendant’s head while he was in line at a convenience store was an arrest. Just having a gun on you in Illinois is no longer a crime. “But there was no swiftly developing situation … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Merely possessing a firearm in a high crime area is not RS

OR: Def’s wife implicitly consented to the search by her actions

The record supported the finding that defendant’s wife consented to the search. Her behavior, including standing in the open doorway and not protesting the officer’s entry, indicated implied consent. In addition, the court found that he did not expressly deny … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on OR: Def’s wife implicitly consented to the search by her actions

NY: Not IAC to not raise a novel knock-and-announce argument

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument that defense counsel was deficient in not raising a novel argument about not following SCOTUS’s Hudson knock-and-announce case fails. No reasonable defense lawyer would have seen the need to raise it, and the merits … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Knock and announce, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY: Not IAC to not raise a novel knock-and-announce argument

WA state exclusionary rule is categorical, and a new crime alone isn’t enough for attenuation

The Washington State constitutional exclusionary rule is categorical and a privacy violation almost always results in exclusion. They had already rejected the good faith exception under state law. Here, it was attenuation, and a new crime alone isn’t enough. State … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, State constitution | Comments Off on WA state exclusionary rule is categorical, and a new crime alone isn’t enough for attenuation

CA6: Realtime ping information didn’t require a warrant

“Perry first challenges the validity of the search warrants for call and location data from his two cellphones. Law-enforcement officers generally need a warrant to conduct a ‘search’ that intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. … But a … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data, Seizure | Comments Off on CA6: Realtime ping information didn’t require a warrant