KTVU.com: SF public defender accuses police of racial profiling:

Continue reading →

In this child pornography case, the search warrant had a 90 day processing clause to search the contents of the computer. On the 90th day, an application was filed with the USMJ for more time to do that, and it was signed after the 90th day. Violations of Rule 41 do not automatically lead to suppression, and this one doesn’t either because there is no prejudice. Also, this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, so no exclusion. United States v. McKany, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171826 (S.D. Cal. December 4, 2013).*

No standing in the search of the cell phone of another person (and it was searched under a warrant). There was probable cause for the search of his motel room based on detailed information from potential crime victims. United States v. Hill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172059 (N.D. Ga. December 6, 2013).*

U.S. Navy police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for suspicion of DUI. United States v. Carlysle, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171777 (E.D. Va. December 5, 2013).*

There is a presumption of good faith, and the good faith exception can be decided other than probable cause. There was a dog sniff of a garage door two years before Jardines (application of which was not briefed since briefs came before it), and it was valid at the time of the dog sniff, and that supports the warrant. United States v. Ponce, 734 F.3d 1225 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

A 1983 plaintiff stated a claim for excessive and unnecessary use of a prisoner restraint chair when he was in juvenile detention. Blackmon v. Sutton, 734 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

The officer credits the named citizen informant who claimed to fear defendant, and the court does too. United States v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163009 (D. Mass. November 13, 2013).*

A USMJ issued a tracking warrant for installation of a GPS device, and it was issued with probable cause. Defendant led the police on a brief high speed chase, ditched the car, and ran across a freeway. That’s abandonment of the car. United States v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161722 (D. Minn. October 31, 2013).*

The strip search policy at the D.C. Superior Court cell block has changed, and the officers implementing the past policy have qualified immunity. Johnson v. Gov’t of the Dist. of Columbia, 734 F.3d 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2013).*

The affidavit for the search of the apartment was with probable cause to believe the occupant was a drug courier from the mainland. United States v. Guzman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162920 (D. Haw. November 15, 2013).*

The officer did not act promptly after he claimed he developed reasonable suspicion to call the dogs out. He made small talk, didn’t ask for consent, and then decided to call for the drug dog, so the stop was unreasonably extended. Nash v. State, 323 Ga. App. 438, 746 S.E.2d 918 (2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant landed an airplane, and six officers drawing down on defendant was not a mere Terry stop, and probable cause was required. Defendant made no furtive gestures and made no attempt to flee. He was unreasonably detained by the one hour wait for the drug dog. People v. Marcella, 2013 IL App (2d) 120585, 996 N.E.2d 106 (2013).

Officers had a tip that defendant was in possession of a stolen reel of AT&T copper wire. They went to his house to talk to him and drove up to the front. There was a fire in the back, so they went to the back and saw copper wire burning in the burn barrel. The entry into the back yard was not unreasonable. People v. Woodrome, 2013 IL App (4th) 130142, 996 N.E.2d 1143 (2013).*

Defendants claim that a court’s discovery order of medical records searches amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure. Because it is a discovery order, and because the materials recovered go to the court under protective order and nobody will see them without that, the court concludes this is a nonappealable discovery order. Radzick v. Conn. Children’s Med. Ctr., 145 Conn. App. 668, 77 A.3d 823 (2013).

Defendant was seen driving, and the officer knew her license was suspended. She was seen going into a convenience store. She didn’t come right out, so the officer went in, and she was in the bathroom. He knocked, but she stalled. The officer got the key and entered the bathroom and searched her coat finding drug paraphernalia. The entry was valid because it was a commercial establishment. Also, the store clerk consented[! Apparently no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom with a locked door]. State v. Dycus, 154 Idaho 456, 299 P.3d 263 (App. 2013).*

Plaintiff’s illegal entry and excessive force claim fails. Police were called to a domestic violence situation, and his wife gave police the key to go in. He had a chain on the door which they broke to get in. He was inside with a kitchen knife to his neck saying he wasn’t going back to jail, so they Tasered him. Brown v. Calicchio, 510 Fed. Appx. 822 (11th Cir. 2013).*

On the totality, “Can you call my attorney?,” was an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel where defendant was handcuffed to a hospital gurney and wanted to think about whether to talk to the police after being Mirandized. United States v. Hunter, 708 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2013).*

Officers knocked and announced and heard running inside. They knew that he was armed, and they testified they feared for their safety because they didn’t know whether he was coming to the door to shoot anybody coming in or was securing a safe location to ambush somebody coming in. State v. Farley, 230 W. Va. 193, 737 S.E.2d 90 (2012).

Defendant’s giving his computer to the police to seize it was implied consent to search it. State v. Jonathan B., 230 W. Va. 229, 737 S.E.2d 257 (2012).*

Defendant failed to show plain error in the trial court’s finding that the probable cause was based on a false statement. [Also, arresting the defense suppression hearing witness for aggravated perjury did not deprive him of a defense or due process and thus was not prosecutorial misconduct.] State v. Clark, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 942 (November 19, 2012).

An internet “gripe site” was not a conventional news gathering source covered by the N.J. Subpoena First Act. A search warrant was issued for his records, and he sued. Even if he were covered, suppression of evidence was not a remedy under the Act. Oettinger v. Township of Bedminster, __ N.J. Super. __, 77 A.3d 1242 (2013):

Continue reading →

The police highway checkpoint that resulted in defendant’s federal DUI was reasonably established. United States v. Morton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172242 (E.D. N.C. December 6, 2013):

Continue reading →

BLT: D.C. Circuit Weighs Challenge to Groin Searches at Guantanamo Bay:

Continue reading →

NLJ: Appeals Court Hears Arguments in GPS Tracking Cases by Sheri Qualters:

Continue reading →

The Hill: Cell carriers reveal 1.1M police requests by Brendan Sasso:

Continue reading →

WaPo: ‘Tower dumps’ give police masses of cellphone data by Ellen Nakashima:

Continue reading →

NYT: Tech Giants Issue Call for Limits on Government Surveillance of Users

Continue reading →

USNews: New Legislation Would Ban NSA From Arizona by Steven Nelson:

State senator says ‘the NSA isn’t welcome in Arizona unless it follows the Constitution’

Defendant’s house and car were opened during the long period waiting for a search warrant to arrive. What was found in the car wasn’t in plain view, but its discovery was valid under inevitable discovery doctrine because the search warrant was in the process of being obtained and was. There was a subsequent search under the warrant. State v. Flinn, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1058 (December 3, 2013).

The emergency search in this case was not shown to be plain error because there was some justification for it. State v. Lerch, 2013-Ohio-5305, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5519 (9th Dist. December 4, 2013).*

The office encountered defendant at 4:30 am, but it was not a seizure. The police car had no top lights on, and the officer parked 20-25′ from him. The officer asked questions, got his ID, wrote down the information, handed it back, and then asked about weapons. It was all by consent. State v. McDowell, 2013-Ohio-5300, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5514 (10th Dist. December 3, 2013).*

Politico: Obama plans new limits on NSA by JOosh Gerstein:

On “Hardball,” the president promises to propose new “self-restraint” for the spy agency.

The Hill: NSA tracks phone locations under executive order by Brendan Sasso:

The NSA argues the collection does not violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.