WaPo: In Rand Paul’s NSA sideshow, a plaintiffs tiff by Dana Milbank:

Continue reading →

WSJ: NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits by Devlin Barrett and Siobhan Gorman:

Continue reading →

Officers had a valid arrest warrant, and they knocked and announced prior to entry. Loud music inside made it so the occupants couldn’t hear. Knock and announce is based on doing just that, not necessarily being heard, especially because of the noise from inside. After defendant was arrested and removed, the officers could not re-enter just to conduct a search incident again. However, a search warrant had since been obtained, and that made the second entry legal. United States v. Nevels, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184077 (M.D. Ala. December 6, 2013).*

When defendant’s car was seen, the officer remembered that defendant’s name came up in a shoplifting at a Kmart three weeks earlier as driving the getaway car. When defendant was stopped here, the officers “drew down on him,” and there was no probable cause for his arrest. The search incident of his person and car was thus unreasonable. People v. Tuncap, 2014 Guam 1, 2014 Guam LEXIS 2 (January 16, 2014).*

Stopping in the middle of the road supported defendant’s traffic stop. United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 2014).*

26% success rate of drug dog was sufficiently reliable to base PC to search a car when the dog alerted. United States v. Green, 740 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2014):

Continue reading →

Defendant was in a car accident that killed his passenger. Both were taken to a trauma center, but defendant wasn’t hurt much at all, complaining only of hip pain. The hospital drew blood as a standard protocol for a trauma center. The police obtained it afterwards and it was .188%. This was purely a private search because the police didn’t ask the hospital to make the blood draw. Then, defendant consented to the police getting it from the hospital. United States v. Bandin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19890 (D. Ariz. February 18, 2014).*

Defendant and another man brought a shooting victim to the ER, and he wasn’t cooperative when confronted by security then the police. Ultimately he was handcuffed and detained, and it was without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. His statements after that thus are suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. State v. Thorpe, 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 177 (February 18, 2014).*

The search warrant was issued with probable cause as to defendant, and it was particular and not overbroad. It was limited to drug related evidence. State v. Gonzales, 2014-Ohio-557, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 537 (3d Dist. February 18, 2014).*

Based on the findings of fact, defense counsel could not be ineffective for not appealing denial of the motion to suppress because it would not be reversed. State v. Fultz, 2014 Wisc. App. LEXIS 126 (February 17, 2014).*

When officers came to arrest defendant at his home, their finding two others at the house justified a protective sweep, and a gun was in plain view. Also, defendant agreed to warrantless searches of his home as a condition of house arrest, and it was a valid condition and consent. United States v. Yeary, 740 F.3d 569 (11th Cir. 2014):

Continue reading →

GPS surveillance for 11 days prior to Jones would not be suppressed under Davis. The court admits that it wouldn’t have held GPS tracking a violation of the Fourth Amendment prior to Jones. [Why concede that you’re so limited in your thinking?] Kelly v. State, 436 Md. 406 (December 23, 2013):*

Continue reading →

WaPo: DHS seeks system to track cars’ license tags by Ellen Nakashima and Josh Hicks:

Continue reading →

American Lawyer: Is Threat of Surveillance New Reality For Law Firms?:

Continue reading →

A motion for a Franks hearing should be called that, not a motion to suppress. There are different standards of review. This Franks motion is denied on the merits as conjectural. United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19373 (D. Nev. February 14, 2014):

Continue reading →

Texas’s exclusionary rule does not bar application of the independent source rule because evidence found subject to it is lawfully found. Wehrenberg v. State, 416 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2013) (concur; dissent), appeal from 385 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2012):

Continue reading →

Reasonable suspicion as to a passenger can support a stop. Brendlin n. 3. United States v. Burton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157676 (M.D. Fla. November 4, 2013).

Defendant consented on the totality to a search of his person for drugs. That included seizure of a crack pipe [what about plain feel?]. State v. Boling, 2013-Ohio-4813, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5019 (2d Dist. November 1, 2013).*

Defendant could be ordered out of his semi for officer safety. The officer had a CI about defendant driving a semi under the influence which he corroborated by observation. The stop was reasonable State v. Durham, 2013-Ohio-4764, 999 N.E.2d 1233 (12th Dist. 2013).*

South Carolina Occupy case goes forward; qualified immunity denied because plaintiffs alleged a violation of a clear constitutional right: The right to protest on state capitol grounds after 6 p.m. Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 13-1258 (4th Cir. December 16, 2013).

Officers had probable cause to believe defendant’s vehicle had evidence of sexual assault in it, and it was sufficient for the automobile exception that it was operational and movable. Defendant’s jurisdictional argument fails because a local deputy sheriff arrived before the search occurred. State v. Podrazo, 21 Neb. App. 489, 840 N.W.2d 898 (2013).*

The officer stopping and frisking defendant had reasonable suspicion he was involved in a robbery within the past 10 minutes and four blocks away. While there were other people similarly dressed in khaki pants, it was cold and only defendant had khaki shorts. Giving due deference to the experience of the officer [something that apparently tipped the balance], there is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Underwood, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176229 (E.D. Tenn. October 2, 2013),* adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175297 (E.D. Tenn. December 13, 2013).*

A mall jewelry store was robbed and watches worth $275,000 were stolen. Two men were arrested, and a third got away. Information was later developed on defendant, and a search warrant was obtained for his house which included “indicia of occupancy.” A bag was looked in and it had a cash sales receipt for a Louis Vuitton belt for $461 for the day after the robbery in the name of an alias defendant used. “The fact that the warrant does not explicitly mention receipts is not determinative: ‘law enforcement officers may seize an item pursuant to a warrant even if the warrant does not expressly mention and painstakingly describe it.’” United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2013).

In the trial court, defendant argued lack of consent. On appeal he argued that the probation officer lacked authority. That’s changing the argument. State v. Howard, 2013-Ohio-5691, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5951 (5th Dist. December 6, 2013).*

“[A] request for consent to search a container is not itself an interrogation, Detective Cavaletti did not violate the Fifth Amendment when he asked Defendant for consent to search the cameras and the black box.” Further questioning about the box was interrogation. State v. Beasley, 416 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. App. 2013).*

Texas’s 14th Appellate District follows In re Application of the United States. 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013), that cell site location data is information held by a third person in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Barfield v. State, 416 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App. — Houston (14th Dist.) 2013).

A “motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence” does not preserve for review a claim that a breath test is not admissible under scientific Rule 702 as expert testimony. State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).*

Defendant was in a car that matched the description of one involved in an attempted burglary. As an officer in an unmarked car closed in on it, a gun was tossed. The gun was reasonable suspicion for a stop. Commonwealth v. Gorman, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 482, 998 N.E.2d 344 (2013).*

Salt Lake Tribune: Companies sue Utah over restrictions on license plate readers by Brooke Adams:

Continue reading →

The Hill: AT&T: Government data requests top 300K by Kate Tummarello:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Searching a cell phone incident to arrest: Possible Fourth Amendment rules that the Supreme Court might consider in Riley and Wurie by Orin Kerr:

Continue reading →

NYT: At Newark Airport, the Lights Are On, and They’re Watching You by Diane Cardwell:

Continue reading →

The Hawai’i Supreme Court finds the state constitution protects against disclosure of third party information without a search warrant: “This rule [Miller and Smith] is untenable in a technological age where in the ordinary course of life, individuals will of necessity have disclosed a boundless amount of information to third parties.” The court also quoted Sotomayor’s concurrence in Jones with approval:

More recently, it has been explained that the approach used in Miller and Smith, and previously adopted by this court in Klattenhoff, “is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.” United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 957 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). As declared by Justice Sotomayor, “[p]eople disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers.” Id.

But, it was ultimately harmless error on the question of guilt because of the wealth of other information putting Walton at the scene. Here, two men robbed a cab driver and stabbed him. Left behind in the cab was a backpack with a GNC card that was traced to Walton. The backpack itself was searched with a warrant despite being left behind in the cab. There was no warrant for information from GNC, but it was arguable that the search warrant allowed that too. State v. Walton, 2014 Haw. LEXIS 79 (February 14, 2014). This is three of five members of the court, starting at page 60 of the .pdf file:

Continue reading →