Search incident of cell phone during a traffic stop was valid with probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence of a crime. United States v. Zaavedra, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174493 (N.D. Okla. December 9, 2013):

Continue reading →

Cut and paste error in search warrant application for a cell phone that included a laptop computer that was not even at issue was not prejudicial. Only the cell phone was searched. Hayes v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 725 (December 11, 2013).

The paraphernalia for a meth lab was found 200 yards from defendant’s house on his farm, and this was open fields. United States v. Castleman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173436 (E.D. Ark. December 11, 2013).*

A private party looked in defendant’s van and told the police she did. The officer asked if there was anything illegal in the van, and she went back and retrieved it. The officer never suggested the search, so it was a private search. United States v. Alvarez-Herrera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174057 (E.D. N.C. October 25, 2013),* adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174058 (E.D. N.C. December 12, 2013).*

CBS’s 60 Minutes: NSA speaks out on Snowden, spying:

Continue reading →

Ars Technica: Boston Police indefinitely suspends license plate reader program by Cyrus Farivar:

BPD’s scanners saw a stolen motorcycle 59 times over five months and police did nothing.

Motion to reconsider installation of GPS device denied, and the judge was not amused that defense counsel just didn’t seem to get it. United States v. Hersman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174831 (S.D. W.Va. December 12, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

NPR: A Movement To Bake Online Privacy Into Modern Life, ‘By Design’:

Continue reading →

NPR: Tug Of Authority Over Legal Gap In Online Privacy:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Editorial: A high-tech dragnet:

Continue reading →

Police covering the peephole during a knock-and-talk is lawful and not a misrepresentation. The occupants voluntarily opened the door not knowing who was out there, and they actually considered it could be the police. State v. Hoffmann, 2013 UT App 290, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 299 (December 12, 2013):

Continue reading →

NYT: Surveillance: Cozy or Chilling? by Noam Cohen:

Continue reading →

King on remand: Maryland follows SCOTUS and also finds the burden of proof not shifted to defendant. King v. State, 434 Md. 472, 76 A.3d 1035 (2013), on remand from Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 186 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013):

Continue reading →

A GPS device was placed on the vehicle defendant was driving that he did not own. The police were tailing him, too. He took off in a highspeed chase and tossed a gun out the window which the neighborhood postman observed. He had no expectation of privacy, and entrapment by estoppel is rejected. United States v. Wilfong, 528 Fed. Appx. 814 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

The officer made reasonable inquiry into the occupancy of the building that was the target of the search and concluded it was one unit with two doors. A reasonable inquiry doesn’t always require contacting the utility providers too, when there is one electric meter. Here, there was a brick wall visible only from the inside that divided the premises into two units. “Facts ‘that emerge after the warrant is issued have no bearing on whether or not a warrant was validly issued.’ Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85.” United States v. Figueroa, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88034 (D. Del. June 24, 2013).

Crouching between cars on the parking lot of grocery store at night was suspicious enough for a stop and patdown, and a gun was found. United States v. Benavidez, 528 Fed. Appx. 829 (10th Cir. 2013).*

Officer’s calling a “multi-colored glass smoking device” as a “bong” in the affidavit for search warrant was not misleading for Franks purposes. State v. Holly, 2013 ND 94, 833 N.W.2d 15 (2013).*

State officers obtained a GPS tracking warrant in state court on probable cause. The affidavit refers to one officer, but another officer presented it and was put under oath by the judge and the judge directed the signature line be changed. That was not a Fourth Amendment violation. It did not, as defendant claims, make the warrant “totally invalid.” The state warrant is governed by the Fourth Amendment in federal court, and this one even satisfied Rule 41(d). Also, the argument that the state trial judge was not authorized by state law to issue this tracking warrant, even if true, which is not decided, the Fourth Amendment governs, not state law. Defendant also raised the question of whether the judge existed at all, but that wasn’t seriously pursued at the suppression hearing in light of the tape recording of the ex parte hearing where the warrant was issued. United States v. Hersman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66746 (S.D. W.Va. May 10, 2013), reconsideration denied 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174831 (S.D. W.Va. December 12, 2013).

Defendant was stopped on reasonable suspicion while a search warrant for his place was in progress, and it was a valid stop. Whether the stop was valid or not under Michigan v. Summers was not presented to the trial court, and it’s waived. United States v. Riggins, 524 Fed. Appx. 123 (5th Cir. 2013).*

Defense counsel did, in fact, challenge the CI for the search warrant, so 2255 petitioner cannot prevail. United States v. Bourgeois, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67128 (D. Minn. May 10, 2013).

Poitico: Obama gets report on NSA reforms by Josh Gerstein:

Continue reading →

WaPo: How NSA pinpoints a mobile device (document):

This document is an internal National Security Agency classification guide outlining the agency’s abilities to intercept cellular communications.

WaPo: In cracking cellphone code, NSA power grows by Craig Timberg and Ashkan Soltani:

Continue reading →

Daily Business Review: Microsoft GC Wary Of Government Surveillance by Michael Liedtke and Marcy Gordon:

Microsoft’s general counsel warns U.S. government surveillance constitutes an ‘advanced persistent threat’ on the level of malware.

The Atlantic: The Surveillance City of Camden, New Jersey by Conor Friedersdorf:

Continue reading →