A driver’s license checkpoint in the Bronx was reasonably conducted, and the NYPD did not violate any Fourth Amendment right by running the DL information through computers to see if the license was valid. A warrant showed for defendant, and he was arrested. United States v. Bernacet, 724 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

One is the one previously posted: In re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring Production of Tangible Things from [Redacted], 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134786 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. August 29, 2013) (order expires October 11, 2013).

The other finds the CIA minimization procedures comply with the Fourth Amendment. In re [Redacted], 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157706 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. October 3, 2011):

Continue reading →

Defendant who refused and resisted opening mouth for a mandated DNA swab was properly convicted of forcibly interfering with a search. State v. Gonzalez, 144 Conn. App. 353, 71 A.3d 681 (2013):

Continue reading →

When defendant was found to be driving on a suspended DL, a frisk of his person and inventory of his car was permissible. Melton v. State, 118 So. 3d 605 (Miss. App. 2012).*

Officers were called to defendant’s house on a complaint of possible animal cruelty. Defendant was found to have consented to their entry into her home, and it is supported by the record. State v. Hartman, 2012 Ohio 4694, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 4113 (9th Dist. October 10, 2012).*

There was a factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion the defendant was following too close behind a truck and then failed to pull over for a parked emergency vehicle. State v. Payne, 2012 Ohio 4696, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 4114 (4th Dist. September 25, 2012).*

NYT: Extended Ruling by Secret Court Backs Collection of Phone Data by Charlie Savage:

Continue reading →

Entry to allow the defendant to get dressed to go to the stationhouse is valid. Plain view sustained. United States v. Avalos, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107467 (D. Neb. July 31, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107462 (D. Neb. June 26, 2013).

“McCune knocked on the trailer door and said, ‘Terry, it’s the Sheriff’s Department. Open the door.’ Sabo opened the door and stood in the doorway, physically blocking McCune’s entry. McCune asked, ‘Terry, do you mind if I step inside and talk with you?’ Sabo said nothing. Instead, he stepped back and to the side and let the door open.” This was nonverbal consent. United States v. Sabo, 724 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2013).*

A “routine traffic checkpoint” [whatever that is] led to the officer smelling alcohol in defendant’s car and he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. One thing led to another and drugs and cash were found, and it was supported by the automobile exception. A second search warrant for the car was valid, too. United States v. Stapleton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106667 (E.D. Ky. July 30, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107498 (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2013).*

Social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity in a 1983 case because when they removed children from their home, they were acting in a police capacity rather than as legal advocates. They were not entitled to qualified immunity because incidents that occurred weeks before the children were removed could not establish exigent circumstances. The law was clearly established that Fourth Amendment warrant requirements applied to the removal of children from their home by social workers, and no reasonable social worker could have concluded that the law permitted her to remove a child without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing where there was no emergency. Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 724 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Real time tracking of defendant’s cell phone required a court order, and a search warrant was not required (what’s the difference if PC shown?). Here, defendant had just committed a triple murder and had indicated he was still going to kill, so there were exigent circumstances, too. The court order obtained was constitutionally and statutorily sufficient, even under the state’s higher privacy requirements. The court starts with the difference between historical cell site location data and present data. (The opinion also cites about 60 cases on historical location data.) Commonwealth v. Rushing, 2013 PA Super 162, 71 A.3d 939 (2013):

Continue reading →

There is no private cause of action for a search warrant for fluoride used in drinking water under state law. Protect the Peninsula’s Future v. City of Port Angeles, 175 Wn. App. 201, 304 P.3d 914 (2013):

Continue reading →

NYT: Senators Call for Surveillance Inquiry by Charlie Savage>

A bipartisan group of senators on the Judiciary Committee on Monday signed a letter asking the inspector general for the intelligence community, I. Charles McCullough III, to carry out a “full accounting” of how the government is carrying its surveillance powers. … The letter asked that the inquiry focus on surveillance that affects “the privacy rights of U.S. persons” and “any improper or illegal use” of the programs.

Volokh: “Does Technology Lead to Tyranny? – The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies in a Digitized World” by Orin Kerr:

Continue reading →

The juvenile didn’t move to suppress timely, and he raised the issue only after the state rested. No good cause was shown for a late filing of the motion to suppress, so it was waived. In re B.N.C., 2013 Ohio 4071, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4261 (2d Dist. September 20, 2013).*

Defendant had no standing to challenge a game warden’s search of his friend’s truck that was by consent anyway. United States v. Catlett, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135036 (E.D. Cal. September 20, 2013).*

There was reasonable suspicion for DUI, and the video of defendant’s stop supported that. State v. Pitts, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 804 (September 20, 2013).*

The appellate court could not conclude that the trial court erred in crediting the officer. RS for the stop was a given. State v. Wessels, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 807 (September 20, 2013).*

eff.org: Thirteen Principles Against Unchecked Surveillance Launched at United Nations:

Privacy Advocates Call Upon UN Member States to End Mass Internet Spying Worldwide

Geneva – At the 24th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Friday, six major privacy NGOs, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), warned nations of the urgent need comply with international human rights law to protect their citizens from the dangers posed by mass digital surveillance.

The groups launched the “International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” at a side event on privacy hosted by the governments of Austria, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. The text is available in 30 languages at http://necessaryandproportionate.org.

Maine and federal drug agents conducted what they called an “administrative inspection” of a Greyhound bus driving between NYC and Bangor that stopped in Portland. Assuming that this so called “inspection” of the bus was illegal [it sounds it to me], defendant was nervous in the bus station and that drew attention to him. He consented to a dog sniff of his person that alerted to his crotch and he agreed to a search in the bathroom rather than having them get a search warrant. He consented to the dog sniff and it was attenuated. The alert gave PC. State v. Ntim, 2013 ME 80, 2013 Me. LEXIS 81 (September 17, 2013)*:

[*P20] Although the bus inspection and Ntim’s consent to the dog sniff were in close temporal proximity, we conclude that Ntim’s voluntary consent to the dog sniff was sufficiently attenuated from the bus inspection due to the intervening activities of the law enforcement personnel present in the terminal. Additionally, as the court found, Angel’s second alert on Ntim constituted sufficient probable cause for the agents to proceed with the search of Ntim’s person in the restroom. See Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1056 n.2, 1057, 185 L. Ed. 2d 61 (2013). Thus, even if the police ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment while conducting the warrantless administrative inspection of the bus, the court did not err in denying Ntim’s motion to suppress.

This “administrative inspection” excuse to use a drug dog on a Greyhound bus that never crossed the border is ridiculous, and it shows how far the police will go to justify using a police dog when one of them hears of a warrant exception.

Defendant’s arrest on a PV warrant did not terminate his parole agreement and make it so he could not have his apartment searched under the parole agreement that he was subject to searches. His liberty was terminated, but not his parole supervision. State v. Ellis, 2013 Ida. App. LEXIS 74 (September 19, 2013):

Continue reading →

On the Media: Tracking Your Steps:

Continue reading →

NYT Editorial: Biometric Technology Takes Off:

Continue reading →

Police had a BOLO for seven males involved in a robbery. The stop of this 13 year old girl was unjustified, so her consent was invalid. W.G. v. State, 118 So. 3d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).*

Apparent hand to hand transactions in a high crime area from defendant’s vehicle was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Horton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103285 (D. Md. July 23, 2013).*

Small talk about destination and other matters during a stop was reasonable, and the officer observed that defendant was likely under the influence of drugs. United States v. Lindsay, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103410 (W.D. Tex. July 23, 2013).*

Police came to defendant’s house to do a drug knock-and-talk because they got an anonymous tip he was selling drugs. One officer was at the front door and another was watching the side door. After some knocking, defendant opened the door, stepped out, said “oh, shit” and retreated into the house. The police beat on the side door until his mother answered, and the occupants were ordered out at gunpoint and the police did a protective sweep. He had a right to retreat into his own house and not be ordered out at gunpoint and arrested. Calloway v. State, 118 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013):

Continue reading →

The package tracking order did not specify when the package and tracking device could be retrieved. Here, there was no alert that the package was opened, and the government could not enter to retrieve it without that. United States v. Nou Xiong, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105063 (D. Alaska July 25, 2013),* As Revised August 29, 2013:

Continue reading →