A search warrant was used to obtain telephone records. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of another person’s account. When you hit “send” and send a text message to another person, you’ve lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in the message. State v. Marcum, 2014 OK CR 1, 2014 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 1 (Okla. Crim. January 28, 2014):

Continue reading →

The tip of defendant being a “man of violence” with guns in the house was sufficiently corroborated by defendant’s arrest (no convictions) record to support a no-knock provision in the warrant. Braun v. State, 324 Ga. App. 242, 747 S.E.2d 872 (2013):

Continue reading →

The search warrant application was devoid of probable cause, and the officer applying for it had to know it. The motion to suppress should have been granted and the good faith exception has no application. State v. Althaus, 49 Kan. App. 2d 210, 305 P.3d 716 (2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant took possession of a package from another, but his name wasn’t anywhere on the package. He had it in his car when stopped. He did not disavow the package, so he had standing to challenge the seizure of the package. The package, however, was subject to search under the automobile exception: “Because we are bound by United States Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the Fourth Amendment, we hold that Acevedo compels the result in this case—officers can conduct a warrantless search of a package located within an automobile if they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained therein.” State v. Bierer, 49 Kan. App. 2d 403, 308 P.3d 10 (2013).

Reasonable suspicion justified a probation search of defendant’s home for the products of burglaries. State v. Short, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 965 (September 5, 2013).*

Officer’s seeing an apparent open beer can passed from one vehicle to another justified a stop to check whether the open container law was violated. State v. Leer, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 960 (September 5, 2013).*

The seizure of defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception was without any probable cause to believe that it was linked to a homicide. In fact, there was no evidence at all the car was connected. The police then used the seizure as a reason to get defendant to come and talk to them (“if you want your car back, please give me a call. We can talk”). The court finds the seizure led to a confession which cannot be separated from the seizure. There was consent to search the vehicle after the police said they were getting a search warrant for the car. State v. Jefferson, 297 Kan. 1151, 310 P.3d 331 (2013):

Continue reading →

Cybercrime Review: Massive round-up of new law articles, covering privacy, Fourth Amendment, GPS, cell site, cybercrime, big data, revenge porn, drones, and more by Justin P. Webb

AP: Internments can happen again, Scalia warns by Audrey McAvoy:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Balko: Scenes from a militarized America: Iowa family ‘terrorized’ by Radley Balko:

Continue reading →

The Recorder: Defense Bar Rallies to Shed Light on Government Surveillance by Julia Love:

ACLU lawyer Linda Lye is working with Northern District defenders who suspect data mining tools were used to investigate their clients.

ABAJ: Chemerinsky: Is it time to go high tech on the Fourth Amendment? by Erwin Chemerinsky:

Continue reading →

Defendant’s stop for maintaining his lane was improper, but his giving a false name when stopped was an independent crime. After things went South and he was arrested, he agreed to cooperate with the police, and his cell phone search was by consent. United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12951 (D. Vt. February 3, 2014). On the lane usage:

Continue reading →

Constitution Center: Video: The Fourth Amendment yesterday, today and tomorrow by Jeffrey Rosen:

National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen looks at the historical issues that led to the Fourth Amendment, and the current issues that could redefine it.

Defendant was confronted banging on the door of an apartment and fled. When he was captured, he was handcuffed. That was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Kinsey, 952 F. Supp. 2d 970 (E.D. Wash. 2013).*

The showing of probable cause for defendant’s car was thin, but, on review by the district court, it’s not de novo review, and the warrant should be upheld if there was some basis for it. United States v. McAleese, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96563 (E.D. Pa. July 10, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

Defendant’s own comments about what was in plain view made its incriminating nature immediately apparent. United States v. Arnold, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1071 (S.D. Ga. January 6, 2014).*

Defendant was stopped as he was getting out of a car at an alleged drug house and questioned. He admitted to being on parole and that there was a gun in the car. The question of how the search went down wasn’t properly decided by the district court, so it’s remanded for reconsideration of the consent. United States v. Guzman, 739 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2014).*

Defendant’s two purchases of pseudoephedrine as a probable precursor for making methamphetamine was nexus to his house for a search warrant. There was otherwise probable cause. United States v. Smith, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1439 (N.D. W.Va. January 7, 2014).*

Failure to comply with the “return” requirement is ministerial, and defendant suffered no prejudice because everything came to him via discovery. There was also consent involving the same search. United States v. Mack, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12197 (N.D. Ohio January 31, 2014).

Defendant’s parole search was a walk through, without opening drawers or closets, and officers could smell unburnt marijuana in the basement. He fled from the house and was retaken later. The parole search was valid. Commonwealth v. Smith, 2014 PA Super 14, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 21 (January 31, 2014).*

NYT Editorial: Making Surveillance a Little Less Opaque:

Communications companies should be allowed to disclose government demands for private data.

Continue reading →

Dog sniff during and early into a routine traffic stop was not unreasonable. United States v. Garcia-Morales, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11451 (D. S.C. January 30, 2014):

Continue reading →

Defendant’s connecting to a Russian child pornography site [reported to DHS by the Russians] through his ISP at home was nexus to search his home. The search of defendant’s Yahoo! email account was reasonably conducted. 1028 emails were delivered, but a word filter search was done first to narrow the search down to 84. The lack of a search protocol did not make the search unreasonable. United States v. Deppish, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12085 (D. Kan. January 31, 2014):

Continue reading →

Forbes: Opinion: Obama’s Weaponization of Government by Thomas J. Basile:

Continue reading →