The Hill: Report: TSA searching records of passengers before they reach airport by Rebecca Shabad:

Continue reading →

Search and Seizure (5th ed. 2013) is also searchable on Lexis.com as of a day or two ago.

Go to Sources ==> Area of Law ==> Criminal Law, and it is on the right column: Search and Seizure, the only book listed.

EFF: EFF Brief Argues Police Need Search Warrant to Read Text Messages by Hanni Fakhoury:

Continue reading →

Atlantic: Ron Wyden: The Lonely Hero of the Battle Against the Surveillance State by Garrett Epps:

The Oregon senator isn’t as famous as Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, but his push for limits on the NSA could result in much-needed reforms.

BLT: Justices Asked to Review Businessman’s Search Warrant Dispute:

Continue reading →

NJLJ: Court Probes Legality of Searches Consented to by Suspects’ Families by Michael Booth:

Two cases argued Tuesday at the New Jersey Supreme Court test the legality of warrantless searches of homes where the suspects did not consent but family members did.

Both defendants sought to withdraw their guilty pleas to weapons violations, alleging that the searches violated their constitutional rights.

I received my copies of the Fifth Edition of Search and Seizure yesterday by UPS. The Lexis bookstore has it here.

It’s available as a book or in electronic format for your computer or iPad and even in a mobile version.

Defendant was subjected to two frisks, and both were based on reasonable suspicion. After the first cursory frisk, the officer still believed defendant could have had a weapon, and defendant’s nervousness was excessive before the second frisk and he was less cooperative. State v. Faubion, 258 Ore. App. 184, 308 P.3d 337 (2013).*

A partially naked toddler was wandering around an apartment complex, and it wasn’t unreasonable for the officer to make an entry into the apartment the child wandered off from to see what was going on. McIlquham v. State, 992 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. App. 2013).

Touching the fog line briefly isn’t an offense in Indiana, but this was worse, and it was at least reasonable suspicion for a stop. Atkinson v. State, 992 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. App. 2013).*

Atwater v. Lago Vista is not contrary to “long-standing state history and traditions,” and it is followed in Illinois. People v. Fitzpatrick, 2013 IL 113449, 369 Ill. Dec. 527, 986 N.E.2d 1163 (2013):

[*P24] In light of the above, we are not persuaded by defendant’s argument that long-standing state history and traditions conflict with the analysis in Atwater. For this reason, we will construe article I, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 in the same manner as the fourth amendment. The circuit court therefore correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Plaintiff’s claim that parole searches occurred in retaliation for suing another parole officer failed. Haynes v. Zaporowski, 521 Fed. Appx. 24 (2d Cir. 2013).*

The collective knowledge of officers justified the stop of defendant’s van and drug dog sniff. United States v. Rivera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47562 (D. Ariz. March 5, 2013).*

Officers had an anonymous tip of a grow operation visible in open fields. They did not have to corroborate the informant before traveling to the scene. United States v. Barajas-Martinez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93803 (E.D. Wash. July 3, 2013).*

Defendant argues that the officers’ testimony has no extrinsic evidence to support it, so it therefore isn’t credible. That’s not an argument for appeal once the trial court makes a credibility determination with a basis in fact. United States v. Perry, 522 Fed. Appx. 821 (11th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant’s 2255 claim that defense counsel was “ill-prepared” to pursue the suppression motion is belied by the hearing on the motion. Barnes v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94007 (S.D. N.Y. July 2, 2013).*

A search warrant that had no time limit to execution where Rule 41 says 14 days, was issued at 3:08 pm and was served the same day, is hardly prejudicial to the defendant. United States v. Manning, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104018 (E.D. Tenn. July 16, 2013).

The state and the Colville Tribe had concurrent criminal jurisdiction over a theft offense on the Colville Indian Reservation. While statute did not explicitly state that the state could execute a search warrant there, it did not prohibit it. The search warrant and the prosecution did not interfere with tribal sovereignty. State v. Clark, 178 Wn.2d 19, 308 P.3d 590 (2013).

A criminal defense lawyer of 20 years was disbarred for obtaining a court file from the clerk and then altering the docket sheet to change findings to cover up that he did not ask for a motion to suppress. In re Kamb, No. 200,926-3 (Wash. July 18, 2013).* [What happens to police officers who alter reports or make up false reports about searches and seizures? Hardly ever anything. This guy deserved disbarment because falsifying papers about the need for the search, how it occurred, and what was done about it is a crime against the administration of justice. Such errant cops deserve the same thing.]

That a person is involved in drug dealing is reasonable suspicion for a pat down for weapons. United States v. Chartier, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150778 (N.D. Iowa October 21, 2013).

Officers stopped a Town Car that picked somebody up at the bus station because of a LPN violation. As the car was being pulled over, there was a furtive movement. That justified a 25 minute detention while a drug dog was called, and other cases have upheld detentions that long for the dog. United States v. Parker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150603 (E.D. Ky. October 21, 2013).*

The state showed reasonable suspicion for a stop based on a poorly illuminated LPN, and that led to defendant’s being found under the influence. State v. Ferrell, 2013-Ohio-4651, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4869 (5th Dist. October 21, 2013).*

Being a disorderly hotel guest, without more, doesn’t sanction the hotel consenting to a search of one’s room, and the police sure couldn’t rely on that consent. State v. Wright, 2013 Ohio 4473, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4703 (8th Dist. October 10, 2013):

Continue reading →

WaPo: High court to rule on warrantless wiretapping by Editorial Board:

Continue reading →

Defendant’s patdown was justified by marijuana falling out of his pocket. State v. Douglas, 2013 Ohio 4563, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4781 (3d Dist. October 15, 2013).*

Reading the affidavit for search warrant in a common sense fashion, it shows probable cause to believe that drugs would be found inside defendant’s house. The CI was adequately supported, and he didn’t have to be a chemist or completely knowledgeable about what cocaine would look like. Anderson v. State, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12822 (Tex. App. – Tyler October 16, 2013).*

The trial court suppressed holding that there was no showing of exigency for a DUI blood test under McNeely, and that is affirmed. The trial court was wrong about probable cause because there was. However, the trial court was right that the game warden was wrong about a blood test being mandatory because there was an accident. State v. Baker, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12818 (Tex. App. – Tyler October 16, 2013):

Continue reading →

ars technica: Contrary to public claims, Apple can read your iMessages by Dan Goodin:

Continue reading →

The Hill: ACLU sues government over use of NSA surveillance in criminal cases by Kate Tummarello:

Continue reading →

Belief that there was a gun left in defendant’s car was a valid justification for its inventory [remember Cady v. Dombrowski and the off-duty officer’s service revolver?]. United States v. Bah, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148943 (E.D. Tenn. August 8, 2013):

Continue reading →

Under Minnesota law, defendant’s cable internet provider had to provide subscriber information on an administrative subpoena, and U.S. v. Jones doesn’t provide any relief. United States v. Wheelock, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150246 (D. Minn. September 13, 2013):

Continue reading →