Defendant filed a boilerplate motion to suppress and the government replied with facts, and defendant didn’t respond. The motion could be denied without a hearing relying on the government’s uncontested facts. United States v. Kyle, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2383 (9th Cir. February 7, 2014):

Continue reading →

Philadelphia Inquirer: Should police be allowed to use military drones to gather evidence? by Scott Bomboy:

Continue reading →

NYT: Police Fight Orders on Stop and Frisk by AP:

Continue reading →

NYT: N.S.A. Program Gathers Data on a Third of Nation’s Calls, Officials Say by Charlie Savage:

Continue reading →

The Ohio Highway Patrol policy required that inventories be complete and not stop just because something incriminating was found. Here, the officer did just that, and it showed that the inventory was a pretext for a criminal investigative search. The passenger’s duffle bag wasn’t even listed on the inventory. In addition, the stop for speeding was unsupportable with any real evidence. State v. Harper, 2014-Ohio-347, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 346 (9th Dist. February 3, 2014):

Continue reading →

When defendant was stopped for a lane violation and was suspected of DWI, the officer asked dispatch to run his name. It came back with a DWI2d, which defendant argued was inconsistent and unreliable without the DWI1st. It wasn’t and the blood draw required by the Texas Transportation Code was valid. Lyssy v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1367 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) February 6, 2014).*

Defendant was almost in an accident and was followed home. The officer observed him unsteady on his feet, and the arrest was with probable cause. State v. Morris, 2014 Iowa App. LEXIS 110 (February 5, 2014).*

Defendant’s stop was for overtinting, but the officers had reasonable suspicion that the occupants were involved in car burglaries where wallets and credit cards were stolen, and they were suspicious at an ATM, parking so the cameras wouldn’t get the car and looking around too much. During the stop, they were completely uncooperative and their IDs could not be confirmed. United States v. Obasuyi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14811 (S.D. Fla. January 24, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14830 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2014).*

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in ISP information sufficient to require a search warrant under Fourth Amendment. NJ’s Reid case is not followed under state constitution either. State v. Leblanc, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 235 (La. App. 1 Cir. February 4, 2014)*:

Continue reading →

Defendant was observed drinking a beer in a park. He was seen putting something in his hoodie pocket which was on his truck. A search of the hoodie was suppressed, and, on appeal, the state didn’t argue what exception to the warrant requirement applies. It’s not the court’s province to make its argument for it. State v. Wallace, 2014-Ohio-375; 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 366 (9th Dist. February 5, 2014):

Continue reading →

Hearsay is admissible at suppression hearings, and the confrontation clause does not apply. United States v. Lopez-Carillo, 536 Fed. Appx. 762 (10th Cir. 2013).

2255 petitioner filed a motion to suppress, lost, and unconditionally pled guilty. He waived the Fourth Amendment issue by pleading. Winkler v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117484 (E.D. Tenn. August 20, 2013).*

P2P file sharing is not a search. United States v. Dodson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118031 (W.D. Tex. August 13, 2013).*

Mere disagreement with a state court’s Fourth Amendment conclusion does not amount to denial of a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” it. To overcome Stone v. Powell, there has to be an “unconscionable” breakdown of the state court process. Certificate of appealability denied. Stevenson v. Timme, 536 Fed. Appx. 789 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant fled from police and allegedly dropped drugs in flight. He was not seized while fleeing. The drugs he dropped gave probable cause to search his car under the automobile exception and not Gant. State v. Jemison, 66 So. 3d 832 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).*

Smell of marijuana and an open beer can justified a search of defendant’s car. Jackson v. State, 127 So. 3d 1251 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).*

Smell of marijuana alone justified a search of defendant’s car. State v. Perry, 66 So. 3d 291 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).*

Randolph on veto of consent does not apply to this consent search; defendant’s wife consented and he did not object. Payton v. Commonwealth, 2010 Ky. LEXIS 298 (December 16, 2010).*

The lack of a plan for this DUI roadblock made it unreasonable and a stop with unfettered discretion. Ogburn v. State, 104 So. 3d 267 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).

A search warrant for a cell phone in a money forfeiture trial was issued without probable cause where it was “based on [only] (1) the money found in Bolden’s vehicle and (2) Officer Kendrick’s personal knowledge that Bolden had sold illegal drugs in the past.” Bolden v. State, 127 So. 3d 1195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).

Defendant was removed to the back of a police car while a search warrant was sought for child pornography. He was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and in custody for Miranda purposes. United States v. Wooten, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90627 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2012).*

Holding a motorist’s DL longer than necessary “to know who they’re dealing with” and then running warrants for curiosity was unreasonable because it extended the stop. State v. Moralez, 297 Kan. 397, 300 P.3d 1090 (2013):

Continue reading →

Objective facts supported search of person found on the premises during execution of a search warrant, even though the officer did not intend to arrest him. State v. Beltran, 48 Kan. App. 2d 857, 300 P.3d 92 (2013):

Continue reading →

The taxicab industry in NYC is heavily regulated, and it is constitutionally permissible for the TLC to require GPS and fare data be continually transmitted when there is a fare in the cab. This has already been decided in federal cases in NYC, and they are followed. Also, there is no tracking when the cab is off-duty. Matter of Carniol v New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n., 2013 NY Slip Op 23358, 42 Misc. 3d 199, 975 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Co. 2013):

Continue reading →

NLJ: Chief Justice Roberts Names Two Judges to Surveillance Court by Todd Ruger:

Continue reading →

Fox CT: FAA Investigating Possible Illegal Use Of Drone At Hartford Crash Scene by Beau Berman:

Continue reading →

Inquistor: SWAT Team Raids And Home Seizures Spark Fourth Amendment Debate:

Continue reading →

No, dear readers, the Obama Administration did not start border computer searches. It started early in the middle of the Bush Administration. Then it became policy. The first reported cases were right after 9/11. See Treatise § 35.19 n.1; see e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005).

This keeps coming up, even today, and it’s just wrong. It’s been going on for more than a decade. Keep up. One headline doesn’t mean that it’s new.

Continue reading →