Reuters: In U.S. justice system, the strip-search is common practice by Joseph Ax:

Continue reading →

HuffPo: Dire Civil Liberties Predictions For 2014 by Radley Balko (in The Agitator):

Continue reading →

NYT: Obama Weighing Security and Privacy in Deciding on Spy Program Limits by David E. Sanger:

Continue reading →

WSJ: Verizon to Disclose Law Enforcement Requests for Customer Data by Michael Calia:

Continue reading →

Wired: What to Expect From Surveillance Politics in 2014 (Hint: It’s Not Reform) by Chris Finan:

Continue reading →

A private security guard at a near campus community of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington was not a state actor when he stopped the defendant for DUI on the community property and then he called the police. He was not induced by the police to make such stops. State v. Weaver, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 1317 (December 17, 2013).

The trial court credited the officer that defendant’s girlfriend consented to the search. Defendant was there and didn’t object. State v. Cook, 2013-Ohio-5449, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5696 (1st Dist. December 13, 2013).*

2255 petitioner’s IAC claim was really just an effort to relitigate his denied motion to suppress rearguing the police were lying. Denied. Davis v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177410 (M.D. Fla. December 18, 2013).*

“Invs. Concepcion and Dodaro merely parked alongside Mr. Alexander’s car, walked to each side of the car, and asked Messrs. Frails and Alexander routine questions about their presence in the neighborhood. It is undisputed that the time between parking the patrol car and approaching Mr. Alexander’s car was very brief, the suspects had their windows down, the investigators did not draw their weapons, did not ask for identification, and did not give any directions to Mr. Alexander or Mr. Frails during the initial part of the encounter. [¶] Police action such as this is insufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment seizure.” United States v. Alexander, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176920 (S.D. Ga. October 18, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped without reasonable suspicion: United States v. Garner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175962 (D. Nev. October 22, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

WaPo: The right call on the NSA by Eugene Robinson:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Officials’ defenses of NSA phone program may be unraveling By Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima:

Continue reading →

Defendant was in a police dominated place, a bus shelter, where police congregated looking for a man with a gun. They “handled” the other five there when they got to him, and his consent was merely submission to a claim of authority. The situation was completely police dominated. United States v. Robertson, 736 F.3d 677 (4th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

On rehearing, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its decision on a probation search, but a dissent was added. United States v. King, 736 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2013), amended August 27, 2013. Summary by the court:

Continue reading →

Pre-Jones GPS tracking suppressed because there was no binding Ohio authority that said it could be done. Therefore, the court declines to apply the Davis good faith exception. State v. Allen, 2013 Ohio 4188, 997 N.E.2d 621 (8th Dist. 2013):

Continue reading →

A wiretap provided reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop and use of a drug dog on his vehicle. United States v. Vargas, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139672 (C.D. Cal. September 20, 2013).

Defendant was arrested on probable cause for burglary when the officer saw his shoes and observed that they matched shoeprints at the scene. State v. Tate, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 842 (September 27, 2013).*
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/tatebillyopn.pdf

Defendant consented to a search of his car after he’d been Mirandized and transported. State v. Hooten, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 843 (September 27, 2013).*

Defendant was arrested and removed from a hospital without probable cause, and there should be no good faith exception to warrantless arrests without PC. State v. McGee, 2013 Ohio 4165, 996 N.E.2d 1048 (7th Dist. 2013).*

County court judges are a creature of statute, so they lack statutory authority to issue a search warrant for evidence in another county. While statute was violated, and likely the Fourth Amendment too [under Ohio precedent, yes; under federal precedent, no (Virginia v. Moore which isn’t even cited)] the case is remanded to the trial court for additional findings on the good faith of the officer and whether suppression is even the proper remedy. State v. Dulaney, 2013 Ohio 3985, 997 N.E.2d 560 (3d Dist. 2013).

Defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking for photographing a 13 year old girl through her bedroom window at night. He was caught by her father who was a police officer. When the father first confronted defendant, it was as a private citizen, and then he detained him for police to arrive. If considered acting as a police officer, the detention was with at least reasonable suspicion, and defense counsel could not be ineffective for not challenging the stop and detention. In re Hoch, 2013 VT 83, 2013 Vt. LEXIS 82 (September 13, 2013).*

The affidavit for search warrant said that sales of drugs occurred “at 115 Emory Street” not in, and the trial court correctly refused to assume nexus that it meant “in” because it could have been on the porch, in the yard, cars driving by. “Without more facts within the affidavit to tie Mr. Nightwine to the residence at 115 Emory Street, evidence of repeated sales by Mr. Nightwine cannot justify the search of the residence. The affidavit fails to establish a sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to suppress.” State v. Nightwine, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1100 (December 17, 2013).

Officers walked up to defendant’s car to see if he knew anything about a shots fired call they were sent on, and they saw furtive movement down to the floorboard as they approached. They smelled burnt marijuana. “In sum, the Court is satisfied that the officers’ stop and approach towards Defendant’s car were initiated as a consensual encounter that later became non-consensual by virtue of what the officers saw and smelled.” United States v. Winston, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177299 (S.D. Mich. December 18, 2013).*

Trial court’s crediting defendant’s testimony that there was no basis for a traffic stop means it gets affirmed on appeal. State v. Liebling, 2013-Ohio-5491, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5726 (9th Dist. December 16, 2013).*

cjonline: Legislator drug testing includes no penalties for failure by Andy Marso:

Jeff Russell, director of Legislative Administrative Services, says privacy laws prevent him from disclosing the names of those who fail drug tests.

Continue reading →

EFF: 54 Civil Liberties and Public Interest Organizations Oppose the FISA Improvements Act by Rainer Reitman:

Continue reading →

The Guardian: NSA review panel stops short of concrete surveillance reforms by Spencer Ackerman:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning by Ashkan Soltani and Timothy B. Lee (url won’t imbed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/18/research-shows-how-macbook-webcams-can-spy-on-their-users-without-warning/)

Continue reading →