2255 petitioner’s IAC claim of ineffectiveness in a plea agreement with a collateral review provision premised on a failure to recognize a Fourth Amendment claim was sufficient. Hurlow v. United States, 726 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

The estate of an Algerian national held in immigration detention who committed suicide stated a claim for deliberate indifference and Fourth Amendment unreasonableness in a 1983 case. Dismissal of 1983 case and dismissal of supplemental claims reversed. Belbachir v. County of McHenry, 726 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Seatbelt roadblock sustained: (1) The state provided sufficient evidence of substantial compliance with the checkpoint guidelines. (2) The checkpoint was a minimally invasive disruption to the motorists because it was set up to produce only a momentary stop, and it allowed officers to distribute literature on seatbelt use and a general overview of the vehicle for any obvious equipment violations. (3) Testimony showed the checkpoint had been administratively determined prior to it being set up and that the administrative determination was supported by local experience. (4) The checkpoint was part of a well-publicized, statewide effort to encourage motorists to use their seatbelts. Commonwealth v. Garibay, 2013 PA Super 186, 72 A.3d 623 (2013) [I still don’t get it; how can seatbelt use justify a roadblock the same as a DUI roadblock? What’s the threat to the safety of other motorists?]

Back to blog

Popular Mechanics: If a Drone Falls in Manhattan, Does Anyone Get in Trouble?:

Continue reading →

techdirt: EFF Lawsuit Uncovers Abuse Of Surveillance Drones; DHS Files Motion To Suppress Further Transparency:

Continue reading →

Defendant driving a borrowed car had and showed standing without having to call the owner as a witness. United States v. Pettit, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143353 (D. Utah October 2, 2013):

Continue reading →

A private shipping company, We Ship, in Mandan, ND affiliated with UPS had a company policy allowing employees to open suspicious packages. Here, the employee invited the police to come and look. The opening was still a private search, but it could not be said that the contents were legitimately in plain view. Also, seizure of the contents for a lab test was unreasonable. It turned out to be synthetic drugs, JWH-122. State v. Nickel, 2013 ND 155, 836 N.W.2d 405 (2013):

Continue reading →

Officers lacked reasonable suspicion for defendant’s detention, even to get his PO to do it, and the stop was unreasonably extended resulting in finding drugs. Officers abandoned the traffic stop and immediately turned to a drug investigation. Ordered suppressed. State v. Gurule, 2013 UT 58, 2013 Utah LEXIS 153 (October 1, 2013).

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the GPS placement on his car which was legal under Fifth Circuit precedent at the time it was put there. Hernandez v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142638 (N.D. Tex. June 5, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped on I-20 for following too close, and the officer suspected him of transporting persons illegally in the U.S. The stopped dragged on. “The relevant inquiry, however, is at what point the questioning and investigation should have concluded.” The video shows that the officer always had the intent to search the car, and the stop is suppressed because the officer extended the stop without justification. United States v. Alvarado, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142611 (S.D. Miss. October 2, 2013):

Continue reading →

CI’s bringing video surveillance into defendant’s house was not Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Phill, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142286 (S.D. Ind. October 2, 2013):

Continue reading →

Co-occupants can consent, and “we also extend that principle and find that under the circumstances of this case, the stepmother had the authority to consent to a search of appellant’s bedroom in her home and its contents.” Tallman v. State, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 10490 (Fla. 1st DCA July 1, 2013).

“We hold that officer safety concerns fall within the exigent circumstances exception when (1) the officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe there is an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others, and (2) the manner and scope of the search is reasonable.” People v. Brunsting, 2013 CO 55, 307 P.3d 1073 (2013)

Prosecutor’s repeated, yet unobjected to, references to defendant refusing consent to show consciousness of guilt was plain error. People v. Pollard, 2013 COA 31, 307 P.3d 1124 (2013):

Continue reading →

Defendants were ordered to provide DNA by buccal swabs and sought interlocutory review. Defense counsel said that they would resist by force. The court said that it would deal with that issue if it arises, but an erroneous taking of DNA is remediable by appeal. Citing Maryland v. King, it’s not that great an intrusion. Commonwealth v. Bertini, 466 Mass. 131, 993 N.E.2d 654 (2013):

Continue reading →

The car was stopped for a traffic violation. When the officer ran the name of the driver and passenger, the passenger came back with a warrant and a missing and endangered persons report. The passenger was acting furtively and admitted use and possession of a pipe, which had obviously been recently used. That gave probable cause to search the interior of the car. United States v. Evans, 445 Fed. Appx. 29 (9th Cir. 2011).*

Defendant was stopped and arrested based on a flyer the police had showing defendant and his vehicle involved in thefts. Thus, the search of the vehicle was based on that probable cause and not on the search incident doctrine. United States v. Mitchell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80018 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2011).*

Defendant’s handcuffing on reasonable suspicion was reasonable in this case because the officer was trying to maintain the status quo. The defendant was not alone, and they had been passing what the officer thought was drugs. State v. Carrouthers, 213 N.C. App. 384, 714 S.E.2d 460 (2011).*

Officers obtained a search warrant for the victim’s DNA in defendant’s apartment, even though there was no showing that the victim had ever been there. A search warrant for DNA in premises is overbroad. In addition, officers read a journal under the guise of looking for the victim’s DNA in it. State v. Armstrong, 2013 Ohio 2618, 993 N.E.2d 836 (11th Dist. 2013):

Continue reading →

HuffPo: NSA Phone Records Collection Can’t Be Challenged By The Callers, Government Argues Matt Sledge:

Continue reading →

NPR: Your Digital Trail: Does The Fourth Amendment Protect Us? by Daniel Zwerdling:

Continue reading →

An off-duty Georgia officer had probable cause for a custodial arrest of defendant for reckless driving. “The fact that Officer Taddei was off-duty does not impact his authority to make the arrest for the traffic violations that he personally observed. See Griffis v. State, 295 Ga. App. 903, 904, 673 S.E.2d 348, 350 (2009).” [And it wouldn’t violate the Fourth Amendment anyway under Virginia v. Moore.] He opened defendant’s wallet and became suspicious and called detectives. This search incident of the wallet was valid. United States v. Corker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141923 (N.D. Ga. August 13, 2013).*

Defendant’s arrest for public intox, 11 miles from her home, was valid. She was underdressed for the snow and had to lean against the car to stay upright. The search incident revealing drugs was valid. State v. Vause, 2013 Ohio 4351, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4587 (5th Dist. September 18, 2013).*

Drug dog’s alert to car was probable cause to search the trunk. State v. Reid, 2013 Ohio 4274, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4492 (9th Dist. September 30, 2013).*

NYT: The House is divided over almost everything. But FISA Court reform might be able to unite it by Andrea Peterson:

Continue reading →

NYT: Google Accused of Wiretapping in Gmail Scans by Clarie Cain Miller:

Continue reading →