NYMag: White House Panel Recommends Limits on NSA Surveillance by Margaret Hartmann:

Continue reading →

BLT: Judges Releases Report on Evidence Issues in Mass Arrests Case:

Continue reading →

Slate: Why the FBI Thinks Warrantless Drone Surveillance Is Constitutional by Nabiha Syed:

Continue reading →

The Hill: Lawmakers applaud court ruling against NSA by Brenden Sasso:

Critics of the National Security Agency on Capitol Hill are applauding Monday’s court decision that the agency’s sweeping collection of records on all U.S. phone calls is likely unconstitutional.

Politico: Reid open to NSA legislation (“Says Congress needs a ‘good, public debate.'”)

NYT: After Ruling Critical of N.S.A., Uncertain Terrain for Appeal by Adam Liptik:

Continue reading →

BLT: Verizon Wants Claims in NSA Surveillance Suit Dismissed:

Continue reading →

Defendant was under investigation for selling synthetic marijuana and bath salts. His consent was valid and the evidence is uncontradicted. He was originally from India, but the court notes that English is a functioning language of India. United States v. Sahney, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175912 (W.D. N.C. November 15, 2013).

Defendant’s Cadillac was stolen and it was found and searched for evidence of the thieves potentially in it. There was probable cause. Defendant’s argument that it was pretext to examine its papers is rejected because subjective intent doesn’t matter. United States v. Mastronardo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175655 (E.D. Pa. December 13, 2013).*

Defendant’s traffic stop for failing to maintain a single lane and following a tractor trailer too close were uncontradicted and not a mere conclusion that the court should reject. United States v. Dioubate, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175797 (E.D. Tex. November 22, 2013).*

Under Florida statute, suspension of a DL for DUI requires a valid stop. Therefore, the driver gets to challenge the stop in the DMV suspension proceedings. Carrizosa v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17597 (Fla. 2d DCA November 6, 2013).

The officer had PC to take defendant in for a breath test. Trial court reversed. State v. Gilbert, 997 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. App. 2013).*

Defendant’s traffic stop was valid. Even if it wasn’t, his crime of evasion was still not subject to suppression. Williams v. State, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 749 (November 5, 2013)* [The Mississippi court website is so bad I’m not even going to try and find this. See for yourself.]

Defendant was subjected to two stops of his truck. After he refused consent, he was let go on his way, but that officer radioed ahead to others who stopped him again after a traffic violation. This time, reasonable suspicion was found [and probably existed in the first stop]. His possession of a million in cash in the same trailer two years earlier was a factor. A dog alerted, and 90 pounds of cocaine was found. Austin v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1027 (Ind. 2013)*:

Continue reading →

An apparent hand-to-hand drug deal occurred on a convenience store parking lot. There were possible innocent explanations, but this particular place was notorious to the police. Where the car parked, the length of the meeting, the officer’s vast experience, the bad history of his particular place all factored into the officer’s assessment of reasonable suspicion, and it is credited. Granted, cases elsewhere say that an apparent hand-to-hand deal alone is not enough but the court decides there was considerably more here. State v. Anderson, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 277 (November 21, 2013).

The search warrant for the entirety of a flea market to get to defendant’s booth where he was selling counterfeit stuff was not overbroad because it couldn’t be compared to a case of searching an entire building with discrete living or working units inside. And, of course, the good faith exception saves it. State v. Baro, 2013-Ohio-5139, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5356 (10th Dist. November 21, 2013).* [Apparently only his booth was searched, so what’s the complaint? An overbroad warrant that was never broadly executed is far less of a viable issue.]

A “citizen informant” set up a drug deal, and the police came in to complete it. Crediting her statements in full, the best that can be said is that it gave reasonable suspicion for a stop. Here, defendant was stopped and searched by the police solely on the citizen informant’s story which had not been fully corroborated. Kelly v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. 2013).*

Defendant was an American Indian, and he thought that the tribal governor had authorized the police to investigate his killing of eagles. His subjective belief as to the officers’ actions was not relevant to the Fourth Amendment inquiry as to what the officers believed from the objective facts. [So, boiled down to its essence: this is an example of a good faith warrantless search.] United States v. Aguilar, 527 Fed. Appx. 808 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Officers used a drug dog to sniff the front door of defendant’s house and he moved to suppress. The trial court denied the motion, and he was convicted. While on appeal, Jardines was decided, and it controls. While normally a dog sniff is not a search, it is when the curtilage is involved. Removing that unconstitutionally obtained information from the affidavit for search warrant leaves no probable cause. McClintock v. State, 405 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) 2013).

The merits of the search issue was decided on defendant’s direct appeal. On his 2255 he argues it a slightly different way, but he clearly could not prevail so the certificate of appealability (COA) is denied. United States v. Hunter, 527 Fed. Appx. 796 (10th Cir. 2013).*

The officer received anonymous tips about drug dealing at the defendant’s home, and he staked it out seeing cars there but establishing not much of anything other than he could smell marijuana at the house. Granted there was [barely] probable cause, but not for a “serious crime.” Exigent circumstances were lacking because the occupant was a known felon with “prison tattoos”; no weapon, no nothing. United States v. Mongold, 528 Fed. Appx. 944 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

The Hill: Lawmakers applaud court ruling against NSA by Brendan Sasso:

Continue reading →

Law.com: Government Insists ‘Hemisphere’ Surveillance Wasn’t Used in Drug Case:

Continue reading →

Defendant had no expectation of privacy in commercial property behind a building. Police had been checking the gate to the back of the business because of burglaries there. On this occasion, the gate was open, and the officers could hear talking and singing behind the business. They went to investigate and defendant and his friend were back there smoking methamphetamine. They took no precautions to protect their privacy, and the police acted reasonably in checking the back of the business. The defendants also didn’t show any standing in the back on the commercial property. Myrick v. State, 412 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2013).*

During a traffic stop it was reasonable to order the occupants out of the car. Seeing an ammunition clip protruding from under the seat, a search of the car for the gun was proper. Zanders v. United States, 75 A.3d 244 (D.C. 2013).*

Minnesota dealt with a choice-of-law question on admissibility of evidence under privilege, but it discusses choice-of-law in search and seizure cases, too. State v. Castillo-Alvarez, 836 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2013).*

A tipster called the police that there were sounds of a domestic fight and a woman screaming “it hurts.” That supported the officer’s warrantless entry. The defense did not raise a scope of search argument in the district court, so it’s waived. United States v. Stewart, 528 Fed. Appx. 879 (10th Cir. 2013).*

The trial court erred in finding no reasonable suspicion. Defendant’s car was parked at 1 a.m. in a high crime area known for guns and drugs [what other high crime areas are there?], his hood was up, he looked panicked when he saw the officer, he “walk[ed] nervously” toward his car, and the officer thought he put a weapon under the hood. State v. Jennings, 2013 Ohio 2736, 993 N.E.2d 868 (10th Dist. 2013).*

At the scene of an accident, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence. City of Cleveland v. Harding, 2013 Ohio 2691, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2675 (8th Dist. June 27, 2013).*

Plaintiff filed this 1983 action against local police for ordering her out of a house after spending two hours trying to figure out whether she was stealing a $10,000 check from the elderly occupant who was dying of Parkinson’s. The interaction with the police was not a seizure and was reasonable. They had reason to believe she was attempting to commit fraud. Hamilton v. Village of Oak Lawn, 735 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2013)* (read the opinion and see what else Judge Posner has to say about the plaintiff):

Continue reading →

WaPo: Judge: NSA phone collection likely invalid by Ann E. Marimow:

Continue reading →