Consent given when 16 agents were in the house, some in tactical gear, was not consensual. United States v. Piceno, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133056 (D. Kan. September 17, 2013):

Continue reading →

NYT Opinion: Steps Toward a Less Secret Court by the Editorial Board:

Continue reading →

NYDN: Study finds stop-and-frisk leads to mistrust of cops, unwillingness to cooperate with police By Erin Durkin:

Continue reading →

Heritage.org: The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies by Paul Larkin:

Abstract:

Continue reading →

Defendants argued that the inventory of their car was pretextual for an investigative search. There was PC to stop and the decision to impound was reasonable. One officer’s testimony strongly supported pretext, but it was still reasonable on the totality. United States v. Hockenberry, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19296, 2013 FED App. 0281P (6th Cir. September 19, 2013):

Continue reading →

The officer and issuing magistrate violated the nighttime search rule in issuing the warrant, but the officers were already in the house with exigent circumstances investigating a murder. The state countered with it not being a “substantial violation” of rights and inevitable discovery. The court finds it harmless error because of the substantial evidence of guilt otherwise in the record, even if the motion were granted, so it doesn’t have to be decided. (In Arkansas, a nighttime search violation is not even subject to the good faith exception but the state was trying.) Livingston v. State, 2013 Ark. 264, 2013 Ark. LEXIS 297 (June 20, 2013).

Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendants for waving at a person who was also stopped. State v. Magana, 257 Ore. App. 251, 304 P.3d 780 (2013).*

The defense conceded probable cause for a child pornography search of computers, but challenged the potential for over seizure. The district court granted relief, but the appellate court reversed. It’s overview: A warrant authorizing an electronic search of all of defendant’s computer equipment and digital storage devices was not overbroad, did not raise the risks inherent in over-seizing, and did not violate the Fourth Amendment because evidence showing that defendant possessed and distributed a child pornography video on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network provided probable cause to search defendant’s entire computer system and his digital storage devices for any evidence of possession of or dealing in child pornography, and the government had no way of knowing which or how many illicit files there might be or where they might be stored, or of describing the items to be seized in a more precise manner; because there was probable cause to believe that defendant was a child pornography collector, defendant’s entire computer system and all his digital storage devices were suspect. United States v. Schesso, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19256 (9th Cir. September 18, 2013).

Defendant’s landlord entered with permission to repair a leak. He saw drugs on the nightstand, and he called the police and let them in to seize it. The police then got further consent from the defendant. The landlord’s private search was valid, and letting the police in was not unreasonable. State v. Wright, 431 N.J. Super. 558, 71 A.3d 212 (2013):

Continue reading →

People retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their whereabouts and they do not buy a cell phone expecting to be tracked by the government. Warrantless cell phone tracking here violated the state constitution. State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564, 70 A.3d 630 (2013):

Continue reading →

AOL: Cop Throws Family To Ground During Traffic Stop; A concerned bystander captured the encounter on tape

Question why you’re stopped, and you and your family, including your 14 year old son get thrown to the ground. The driver had a gun pointed at his head while lying on the ground next to his son. I’m sure the son now has a new found serious [dis]respect for the police.

There was probable cause for the stop and search of defendant’s tractor-trailer. The fact contraband wasn’t found in the first three hours didn’t cause the PC to dissipate. The truck was moved and searched for two days. Given there was probable cause, the two day search of the truck was reasonable. United States v. Hernandez, 518 Fed. Appx. 270 (5th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

During a traffic stop, defendant refused consent when the paperwork was complete, and the officer refused to let him go, investigating further. The stop was unreasonable. Defendant’s 2009 drug conviction only provides a hunch of illegal conduct. State v. Scanlon, 829 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa App. 2013).

Pro se plaintiff lost in his bench trial for illegal detention, and the record supports the verdict. Bryant v. City of Philadelphia, 518 Fed. Appx. 89 (3d Cir. 2013).*

The encounter with defendant on the street was consensual, up to the time defendant was told he was going to be subjected to a patdown. Defendant, however, was in a high-crime area carrying a woman’s purse, and that was justification for the encounter. The encounter was reasonable. State v. Rappley, 2013 Ohio 964, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 837 (2d Dist. March 15, 2013).*

While the officer exercised some discretion in deciding to tow and inventory the vehicle, the inventory complied with departmental procedure put in evidence at the hearing. Defendant argues that the vehicle was parked on a parking lot and could be left, but the Fourth Amendment does not require that. United States v. Arrocha, 713 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2013).

After defendant’s traffic stop, reasonable suspicion developed because defendant lied about where he’d been around that night when the officer had already seen him. United States v. Hayes, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9435 (5th Cir. May 9, 2013).*

Defendant’s consent to a search after a traffic stop came within the ten minutes it takes to fill out the ticket. The video confirms it. United States v. Peguero, 518 Fed. Appx. 792 (11th Cir. 2013).*

Police saw defendant on a bicycle talking to somebody in a dark SUV. When they stopped, the SUV left, other people scattered, and defendant pedaled away. He was stopped because riding his bicycle on the sidewalk violated city code. His sagging pants were pulled up for a search incident, and a baggie of marijuana was revealed stuck in his sock. Pulling up his pants was legal. State v. Butler, 117 So. 3d 87 (La. 2013).* [As a cop testified here: “When I see sagging pants, I can’t tell whether he’s holding up his pants, holding a gun, or holding his groin. It was a high crime area, so I thought gun.”]

The search warrant affidavit here did in fact show a sufficient connection to defendant and a robbery murder for there to be probable cause. The victim’s blood on his sock was admissible. Commonwealth v. Almonte, 465 Mass. 224, 988 N.E.2d 415 (2013).*

Defendant was standing next to his car with the door open into traffic with a 40 oz bottle in his hand. An unmarked car stopped. The officer had at least PC that defendant had an open container. When he saw it was the police, he made a furtive movement to his waist suggesting a gun. The office moved toward him, and he attempted to flee, getting only three steps before being tackled. His attempted frisk was valid. United States v. Terry, 518 Fed. Appx. 125 (3d Cir. 2013).*

A small hole in the taillight that doesn’t really emit much white light is not a violation of the taillight statute, so defendant’s stop was without legal authority. Kroft v. State, 992 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. App. 2013)*:

Continue reading →

ThreatDefense: New Intel Bill Would Force More FISA Court Reporting by Colin Clark:

Continue reading →

When a LPN check reveals that the owner of a vehicle has a revoked driver’s license, the officer does not have to ascertain that the owner is driving before making a stop. It is still probable cause. United States v. Wissiup, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116581 (D. Utah August 16, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped for illegal tint while driving excessively slow in a high-crime area. He consented to a patdown of his person, but then resisted a second patdown, and his spinning around gave the officer reasonable cause to believe that he was armed. United States v. Taylor, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116481 (D. Md. August 16, 2013).*

Defendant’s arrest and seizure of a blunt from his mouth was unreasonable, but he fought with the officers, and the court’s not suppressing the evidence of the fight because it’s a separate crime. State v. Owens, 992 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. App. 2013).*

ThreatPost: FISC: No Phone Company Ever Challenged Metadata Collection Orders by Dennis Fisher:

Continue reading →

Mashable: Reddit, Civil Liberties Groups Renew Push for Email Privacy by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai:

Continue reading →