NYT: Obama Panel Said to Urge N.S.A. Curbs by David E. Sanger:

A presidential advisory committee’s recommendation of broad new restraints intended to increase privacy protections is a first sign that spying revelations may lead to changes.

Long-term cell phone tracking warrants require probable cause, but good faith applies here. “[W]hen the government requests authorization to engage in long-term, real-time tracking of an individual’s movements via his or her cell phone, the situation reaches past the law set forth in Skinner, and Fourth Amendment concerns are implicated.” The court analyzes nearly all the cases to date. United States v. Powell, 943 F. Supp. 2d 759 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (not on court’s website):

Continue reading →

Defendant was not entitled to disclosure of the name of the informant doing drug deals at his house that was the basis for the search warrant. Defendant was not charged with selling but with possession when the search warrant was executed. People v. Hannah, 2013 IL App (1st) 111660, 991 N.E.2d 412 (2013).

In a violation of supervised release case, the stop of defendant’s car was for a traffic offense, and a gun was seeing sticking out from under the passenger seat. United States v. Mosquera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77247 (E.D. N.Y. May 31, 2013).*

Third party consent was credited as voluntary for the search. United States v. Ortiz, 943 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D. N.Y. 2013).*

Defendant fled from a bank robbery and ditched his vehicle on the side of the road. His argument that the police needed a search warrant to search it was found “to be without merit,” to put it mildly. He also abandoned it on the side of the road. United States v. Bentley, 528 Fed. Appx. 247 (3d Cir. 2013).* [Sounds like defense counsel ordered to appeal, and this isn’t even close.]

Defendant’s post-conviction petition stated a colorable claim for IAC for defense counsel’s failure to preserve a search issue for appeal. Carter v. State, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 502 (June 14, 2013).*

A claim there is a Fourth Amendment right in a prison cell is manifestly frivolous. Laurensau v. Romarowics, 528 Fed. Appx. 136 (3d Cir. 2013).*

Officers responded to a 911 call about an argument in the lobby of a motel. They entered a room. There was no justification shown for entry into the room under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court’s entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity is reversed. Smart v. Borough of Bellmawr, 528 Fed. Appx. 163 (3d Cir. 2013).*

The officers had reasonable suspicion to approach a group of men across the street from a hang up 911 call and there was nothing going on there. On the totality, there was reasonable suspicion as to defendant for a police encounter. United States v. Hightower, 716 F.3d 1117 (8th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant’s written consent to search his apartment included seizure of papers that supported that he was here illegally. United States v. Nyaga, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84372 (E.D. Mo. June 17, 2013).*

Officers unreasonably assumed that the person answering the door in a knock-and-talk who did not live there had apparent authority to consent to a view of the entire residence. The government bears the burden of proving voluntariness of consent and apparent authority and it failed here. United States v. Arreguin, 735 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2013), prior appeal United States v. Arreguin, 453 Fed. Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2011):

Continue reading →

Defendant was arrested for no DL. The trial judge made a credibility determination that the gun in this case was not in plain view, and that’s binding. As to search incident, there was no reason to fear anybody would come back to the car for a weapon, and no DL is not an offense for which there likely would be evidence in the car. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 465 Mass. 600, 989 N.E.2d 854 (2013).

A CI bought crack from an apartment in New Orleans, and the officer believed the seller was “Dooley.” He staked out the apartment and followed a man leaving whom he believed to be Dooley. The officer called out to defendant to stop and he fled, popping a white bag the size of a ping-pong ball into his mouth which he began to “violently” chew. Officers got him to spit out what was left, and it tested positive for crack. The stop was with reasonable suspicion. State v. Wilson, 119 So. 3d 843 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013).*

Drug officers watched defendant at gas station pumps doing what appeared to be two hand-to-hand transactions instead of buying gas. That supported a stop. He did not argue the stop was too long at the district court. A drug dog alerted. He was charged with a gun. United States v. Alexander, 528 Fed. Appx. 515 (6th Cir. 2013).*

Officers had a GPS on defendant’s car, and they were tailing him. His lane change violation led to a stop. The illegal GPS [not even discussing good faith] was attenuated by the traffic stop and a dog alert. United States v. Richard, 528 Fed. Appx. 323 (4th Cir. 2013)* [A long way to go when good faith would have been easier.]

The jury was instructed on the objective use of force to stop plaintiff from entering a house. The motion in limine on the officer’s subjective state of mind was erroneously granted, but harmless error because of the objective standard. Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 718 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2013).*

Officers did not stop defendant: he was broken down in the middle of the street when they came upon him and found him under the influence. United States v. Tate, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82682 (E.D. N.C. June 5, 2013).*

Defendant was attempted to be stopped for riding a bicycle without a light at night. Instead of stopping, he pedaled faster. That netted him an obstruction charge. The obstruction charge supported a search incident. State v. Willis, 2013 Ohio 2391, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2346 (12th Dist. June 10, 2013).*

“[T]he mere presence of women during the [prison] lockdown strip search on October 5, 2009 rendered the searches unconstitutional.” Small v. Wetzel, 528 Fed. Appx. 202 (3d Cir. 2013).*

Defendant’s furtive movement as car was stopped justified a search under the driver’s seat. United States v. Law, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80691 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2013).*

A search warrant is not required to read the magnetic strip on a credit card in a suspected credit card fraud case. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information on the card because it is exposed to the credit card reader every time it is used, as the credit card holder intends. United States v. Alabi, 943 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. N.M. 2013) (a long, interesting, and well-written opinion; Judge Browning’s opinions are all far too long, but this one is worth reading):

Continue reading →

Emergency cell phone pinging to locate defendant by officers investigating a shooting did not violate the Stored Communications Act or the Fourth Amendment. Historical cell site location data treated different than emergency disclosure of present location. United States v. Takai, 943 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (D. Utah. 2013):

Continue reading →

NPR: Miami-Area Police Chief Resigns Amid Charges Of Racial Profiling by Bill Chappell:

Continue reading →

Law.com: Third Circuit to Rehear GPS Tracking Case En Banc:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in a case decided two months ago establishing that police need a warrant before attaching a GPS tracker to a suspect’s vehicle.

Defendant had moved into the place he consented to a search of a week earlier. That was apparent authority for his consent. “Surely, someone who just moved into a dwelling has as much right to consent or refuse a search as someone who has lived there for years.” United States v. Ramirez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174030 (D. Neb. December 11, 2013).

Defendant’s 2255 claim that his lawyer didn’t properly handle the suppression issues is completely belied by the record. United States v. Garibay, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173871 (S.D. Cal. December 10, 2013).*

“[T]he odor of both PCP and marijuana coming from Scott’s vehicle provided him with probable cause to search the entire vehicle for illegal drugs – including the side pocket of the driver’s door where the subject gun was immediately visible upon opening the door.” United States v. Scott, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173765 (W.D. Mo. November 17, 2013).*

“We need not decide today whether to join other circuits in holding that an egregious Fourth Amendment violation affirmatively compels exclusion in a removal proceeding because the Petitioners have not alleged an egregious violation.” Lopez-Fernandez v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2013).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. Independent of that, he was identified within an hour as being a suspect in a robbery. Ansley v. State, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 935 (November 18, 2013).*

A police officer who called a prosecutor during a stop for legal advice was entitled to qualified immunity for relying on the advice even though it was contrary to clearly established law. Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23273 (3d Cir. November 19, 2013),* prior appeal Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2010) (same).

One defendant cannot challenge another defendant’s arrest. Here, it was under a violation of a mutual aid agreement. State v. Mitchell, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18003 (Fla. 2d DCA November 13, 2013).*

The interaction between defendant and the officer was consensual up until the officer grabbed his hand on seeing a baggie of dope. Then it was justified by reasonable suspicion. State v. Simmons, 2013-Ohio-5088, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5285 (9th Dist. November 18, 2013).*

The defense cannot show clear error on whether taillights were operating or not on a car where the district court found that they weren’t based on the officer’s testimony and a proffer of evidence that was not necessarily reliable that the taillights were working some other time that month. United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2013).*

Police investigating a murder for hire scheme in Tulsa developed information that defendant likely provided the van used in the murder. Sufficient probable cause developed in that case to issue the search warrant that led to the felon in possession of firearm case against him. The information was not constitutionally stale because the probable cause pointed to current possession of what the police were looking for. “The relevant question is whether the information in the search warrant affidavit suggests the items sought are currently located in the place officers seek to search.” United States v. Harris, 735 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Taxpayers challenged an assessment of their house after it was built, then refused an inspection. When the Department of Revenue sought an inspection, they defended on Fourth Amendment grounds. The inspection did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they put the value of the house in issue. Bleoaja v. Dep’t of Revenue, 20 OTR 102, 2010 Ore. Tax LEXIS 206 (July 19, 2010):

Continue reading →

ABAJ: Search warrants served on law firm in loan-modification probe; lawyer faces marijuana charge by Martha Neil:

Continue reading →