NYT: N.S.A. Said to Tap Google and Yahoo Abroad:

Continue reading →

Grits for Breakfast: Are we on the verge of a Fourth Amendment revival?
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2013/10/are-we-on-verge-of-fourth-amendment.html?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=79553&utm_campaign=0

Continue reading →

A dog sniff in a common hallway outside an apartment was valid, and it fully supported the search warrant. United States v. Mathews, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154376 (D. Minn. September 10, 2013).

Officer safety justified telling defendant to get out of his truck. Officers had reasonable suspicion for the stop based on a CI’s information. State v. Durham, 2013-Ohio-4764, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4969 (12th Dist. October 28, 2013).*

Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle with an LPN that did not come back to it. When stopped, the officer could see muriatic acid and tubing in the front seat. He got the occupants out, and defendant’s jacket had a bulge. Because defendant had an assault with a weapon prior, the officer asked for permission to conduct a patdown, and defendant didn’t consent. The officer told him he was going to do the patdown and defendant would be arrested for obstruction if he resisted. Defendant removed a package of hypodermic needles from his pocket. He then admitted he had meth on him. The patdown and the finding of the meth was reasonable; his admissions are suppressed. United States v. Chartier, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150778 (N.D. Iowa October 21, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154443 (N.D. Iowa August 16, 2013).*

Defendant’s merely touching the white line was not an offense under Georgia law, but the court finds reasonable suspicion from other factors. “ Based on (1) these observations; (2) Spruiell’s understanding that the hours between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. are ‘typical alcohol serving hours for clubs’; and (3) his experience that drivers who are under the influence commonly fail to maintain their lanes, Trooper Spruiell suspected that Defendant was driving while intoxicated.” United States v. Bryson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151091 (N.D. Ga. October 21, 2013).*

I got an email about a week ago that some Federal Defenders encountered a “Malware” warning for this website. The company running the server ran virus software against it, and it should be clean. If you still get warnings, let me know.

NYT: New York Police Detective Is Accused of Perjury:

Continue reading →

NPR: Will GPS Cannon Spell The End Of High-Speed Chases?

Continue reading →

BLT: On Capitol Hill, Intelligence Officials Defend Surveillance by Alex Zank:

Continue reading →

NYLJ: Second Circuit Panel Challenges City on Delay in Seeking Stay in Stop/Frisk by Mark Hamblett:

Continue reading →

Taking and publishing a mugshot after an arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Jamali v. Maricopa County, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150956 (D. Ariz. October 21, 2013):

Continue reading →

Following the Fifth Circuit rule, good faith is determined before probable cause, and it may obviate deciding PC. United States v. Munoz, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155011 (S.D. Tex. October 7, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

There were two entrances through defendant’s gate into his property: a front gate with a doorknob and a gate at the back with a latch on the inside at the top. It was not reasonable for the FBI Agent to enter the back gate for a knock and talk, and the observation of marijuana in the backyard was suppressed. United States v. Garretson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154247 (D. Nev. June 6, 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant arrived at Detroit on a flight from Japan, and a random stop resulted in his two computers being seized for examination. He was allowed to leave and fly on, but his computers went to the ICE office in downtown Detroit. The court concludes that the computers were not subjected to an “extended border search” requiring reasonable suspicion. Child pornography was seen on the computer, and he was indicted and convicted. United States v. Stewart, 729 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

A police officer planting drugs as allegedly seized from a suspect is a distribution of drugs and a civil rights offense. United States v. Figueroa, 729 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2013).

Pre-Jones GPS monitoring sustained because defendant was on federal supervised release with a “‘severely diminished expectation[] of privacy by virtue of [his] status alone.’” Second, Davis good faith makes it valid. United States v. Wilson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125478 (E.D. N.C. September 3, 2013).

The money under defendant’s bed was seized by a search warrant, and his argument that Gant somehow applied is way off the mark. United States v. Guzman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125138 (D. S.C. August 30, 2013).*

Defendant’s parole search was valid based on “reliable information” that he was using drugs. United States v. Mabry, 728 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2013).*

Officers had a reasonable belief that one Smith was at a particular address, and police had an arrest warrant for him. They entered on that arrest warrant on a pretext because they were looking for defendant for bank robbery, and he was hiding under the bed (as a guest). The pretext does not invalidate the entry because it was objectively reasonable for Smith. United States v. Hamilton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126027 (D. Mass. September 4, 2013).*

The trial court credited the officer’s testimony that the defendant crossed the centerline three times before pulling him over, and that’s reasonable suspicion. State v. Gadke, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 743 (August 26, 2013).*

The court of appeals did not err in holding that the valid stop was not “measurably extended” by incidental questions. “We also note that the proper inquiry is not whether an officer ‘unreasonably’ extended the duration of the traffic stop with his off-topic questions but whether he ‘measurably’ extended it. See Johnson, supra. This is a temporal inquiry, not a reasonableness inquiry.” State v. Provet, 402 S.C. 101, 747 S.E.2d 453 (2013), affg State v. Provet, 391 S.C. 494, 706 S.E.2d 513 (App. 2011).

Defendant’s computer was operating peer-to-peer, and it was not an invasion of privacy for police to use the Round Up program to remotely check for child pornography on his computer. That led to a valid state search warrant for his computer. While he was not immediately given an inventory for the seizure, this is not a significant enough violation of Rule 41 to matter. [If it’s a state search warrant, Rule 41 doesn’t apply; just the Fourth Amendment, anyway.] United States v. Franklin, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116258 (W.D. Ark. August 16, 2013).*

Defendant’s protective sweep was invalid, but the search warrant later issued was an independent source for everything found because it had an independent basis. United States v. Byam, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116147 (E.D. N.Y. August 15, 2013).*

Holding on to a driver’s license too long “while unsettling, did not convert the interaction between Defendant and the officer into a seizure. [It is a significant factor.] Under the totality of the circumstances, the interaction remained consensual,” and the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Kincannon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154016 (S.D. W.Va. October 28, 2013).

“In relation to stops by border patrol, the totality of circumstances may include: (1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual patterns of traffic and time of day; (4) previous alien or drug smuggling in the area; (5) behavior of the driver, including obvious attempts to evade officers; (6) appearance or behavior of passengers; (7) model and appearance of the vehicle; and, (8) officer experience.” The totality showed reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Meinhardt, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154251 (D. Ariz. September 13, 2013).*

The officer described the child pornography that the officers expected to find with sufficient particularity to satisfy the Dost standard (United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986)). United States v. Downsbrough, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154331 (E.D. Tenn. September 12, 2013).*

Warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone was valid by inevitable discovery. While it was searched before officers got a search warrant, the fact they got a search warrant after the fact validates it. United States v. Borrero, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154341 (S.D. N.Y. October 28, 2013):

Continue reading →