NPR: Portland Police Collect Thousands Of License Plate Numbers by Kristian Foden-Vencil (Oregon Public Broadcasting):

Continue reading →

Invalid extraterritorial arrest by local LEO on state highway under exclusive jurisdiction of Highway Patrol didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment, but it did violate the state constitution. State v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5351, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5573 (6th Dist. December 6, 2013).

There was reasonable suspicion by collective knowledge for the stop of defendant. State v. Widner, 2013 Ida. App. LEXIS 89 (December 10, 2013).*

There was probable cause for defendant’s arrest based on the criminal complaint in the file. His car was validly searched at the time of his arrest under the automobile exception. His cell phone was seized incident to the arrest but a separate search warrant was issued for it, the validity of which isn’t contested. United States v. Thompson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172623 (S.D. N.Y. December 3, 2013).*

WaPo: At Senate hearing, NSA director defends spying program by Ellen Nakashima:

Continue reading →

Leahy: Tech Industry Supports NSA Reform Measure:

Continue reading →

WaPo: How much is your privacy worth? $350 a year, according to AT&T by Brian Fung:

Continue reading →

Four people apparently “smurfing” pseudoephedrine from a Wal-Mart was reasonable suspicion. When the officer got to the car, he could see many empty blister packs in plain view in the back seat and that was probable cause of manufacturing methamphetamine. State v. Duhe, 2013 La. LEXIS 2773 (December 10, 2013):

Continue reading →

After raw marijuana was smelled and defendant was removed from his car, it was reasonable to pat him down for weapons before putting him in the back of a police car. State v. Chase, 2013 Ohio 2347, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2274 (2d Dist. June 7, 2013).*

Defendant was already stopped when the officer stopped his car and walked up to him. The conversation was consensual, and raw marijuana could be smelled and that led to a search. State v. Chase, 2013 Ohio 2346, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2277 (2d Dist. June 7, 2013).*

Defendant’s wife had common authority over a cabinet that stored child pornography she found, so she could consent to a search. People v. Lyons, 2013 IL App (2d) 120392, 991 N.E.2d 506 (2013).*

There was probable cause to seize defendant’s car and search is based on the automobile exception. Defendant was on a wire talking and he was to be transporting drugs. When got into his car to go to a meeting, that was PC to believe drugs would be in the car. United States v. Dennis, 527 Fed. Appx. 221 (3d Cir. 2013).*

Law.com: Does Local Surveillance Of Call Data Breach the Fourth? by Angela Hunt:

Continue reading →

WaPo: NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking by Ashkan Soltani, Andrea Peterson, and Barton Gellman:

Continue reading →

New Yorker: STATE OF DECEPTION, Why won’t the President rein in the intelligence community? by Ryan Lizza:

Continue reading →

Defendant was stopped in an apartment complex, and he was going to be arrested. The passenger had no DL. Since neither lived in the complex, the decision was made to impound the vehicle. The air cleaner box in the engine compartment can be searched under inventory. “The officers testified that they have found firearms in other air cleaner boxes. The air cleaner box on the subject vehicle was large enough to contain a pistol and holster.” United States v. Torres, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172312 (D. Nev. July 10, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172308 (D. Nev. December 6, 2013).

Defendant was questioned at a campsite in Tennessee about allegedly having public sex with an underage girl he was camping with. While the encounter was two hours long, defendant was cooperative, and the investigation moved along. It was not a “stop” under Terry, and defendant admitted he was cooperative and didn’t feel under arrest. United States v. Partin, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172236 (M.D. Ala. September 4, 2013).*

There was an arguably invalid search of defendant’s motel room, but a search warrant was issued. Even without the information from the invalid search there was probable cause for the warrant, and the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Hill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172752 (N.D. Ga. August 26, 2013),* adopted United States v. Hill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172059 (N.D. Ga. December 6, 2013).*

Defendant moved to suppress, but he did not claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or the things seized, so he cannot prevail. [Note I didn’t say “standing.”] United States v. Rogers, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173175 (D. Minn. August 29, 2013).*

One Beckman had possession of defendant’s cell phone and he showed child pornography pictures on it to a police officer who then took the phone for a search warrant. The initial seizure was private, and the showing to the police was not unreasonable. United States v. Rasmussen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172437 (D. Minn. December 6, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172880 (D. Minn. October 9, 2013).*

If the search in this case were based on inventory, defendant would win, but it can be justified by search incident and it’s valid. United States v. Vance, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172187 (E.D. Mo. November 7, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171493 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 5, 2013).*

“Paraphernalia” in a search warrant does not make it overbroad. “This is consistent with other courts that have found that the use of ‘paraphernalia’ in a warrant is sufficiently particular.” The same with “documentary evidence,” including documents about the Latin Kings as a drug distribution group. The cell phones found were properly seized as well. United States v. Ramsey, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172391 (M.D. Pa. December 5, 2013):

Continue reading →

“In this case, Officer Michael acted with reckless disregard for Crosby’s Fourth Amendment rights when he forcibly removed him from the vehicle without probable cause to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. The court finds that the deterrent value of the exclusionary rule in this case outweighs the resulting social costs. The court further finds that the firearm and ammunition were products of the illegal seizure. For these reasons, the firearm and ammunition must be suppressed.” United States v. Crosby, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173154 (E.D. N.C. December 10, 2013).*

Officers had both exigent circumstances and consent to take possession of defendant’s cell phone. It was searched with a search warrant. United States v. Thomas, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173117 (D. Ariz. December 9, 2013).*

Defendant’s 2255 on defense counsel’s alleged failures to pursue a suppression motion timely is “is pure fantasy.” Rodriguez v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173165 (S.D. N.Y. December 6, 2013).*

Defendant knew his jail calls would be recorded, so he consented when he made a call. United States v. Graham, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146824 (D. Mass. October 8, 2013).

Riding the center line is not a reason for a stop. State v. Nguyen, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 1038 (October 2, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped for window tinting and a lane change violation. When the stop was over, the officer said he’d “seen a lot of crazy things” and wanted consent. Defendant refused consent, so the officer got his drug dog out and it alerted. The argument on appeal wasn’t the same as in the trial court: “Considering Defendant’s written motion to suppress and his counsel’s oral argument, we find that Defendant did not raise in the trial court the same argument he is now raising on appeal — that Officer Henderson failed to acquire ‘new’ reasonable suspicion after the alleged conclusion of the traffic stop by the issuance of the Notice of Violation.” State v. Arisme, 123 So. 3d 1259 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2013).*

Defendant admitted in his motion to suppress that the officers had probable cause when he was stopped after a dog alert, and that was binding on appeal. The preserved issue is whether probable cause dissipated with the failure of the dog to alert, and the court finds that it did not. That is only a factor in the totality of circumstances. State v. Anderson, 154 Idaho 703, 302 P.3d 328 (2012):

Continue reading →

Officers responded to a call about an attempted suicide by slitting the writs, and they found a spent shotgun shell in the yard. They talked to defendant inside the house, they found she’d cut herself, but it was not life threatening. She said she fired the shotgun outside. It was reasonable for the officers to look for the shotgun for their own safety and that of the EMTs who were on standby outside the house. State v. Ward, 312 P.3d 323 (Ida. App. 2013).

State case law on pretext for continuing a stop (State v. Ochoa, 2009-NMCA-002, ¶¶ 38-40, 146 N.M. 32, 206 P.3d 143) doesn’t apply when the reason for the stop was an outstanding arrest warrant. State v. Peterson, 2013 N.M. App. LEXIS 109 (October 21, 2013).*

Defendant’s traffic offense, which the trial court credited, supported his stop. State v. Anderson, 2013-Ohio-4664, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4878 (5th Dist. September 30, 2013).*
[Note: Lexis now reads the -Ohio- in Ohio cites, so that will be the default from now on.]

Defendant waived suppression by not filing a suppression motion on the issue in the trial court. The Court of Special Appeals considered the merits, and defendant lost on the merits. On review to the Court of Appeals, the state cross-petitioned that the issue was not preserved, and it prevails. Ray v. State, 435 Md. 1 (September 27, 2013).*

Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. Alternatively, the gun was in plain view. United States v. Guidry, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139084 (W.D. La. September 6, 2013).*

Defendant lived with his mother, and she consented to a search of the basement, a common area to them. People v. Swain, 2013 NY Slip Op 6106, 109 A.D.3d 1090, 971 N.Y.S.2d 613; (4th Dept. 2013).*

The Atlantic: E.L. Doctorow Wishes There Had Been More Outrage About the NSA by Emma Green:

Continue reading →