NYT: Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.’s by Scott Shane and Colin Moynihan:

Continue reading →

NYT: A Data Broker Offers a Peek Behind the Curtain by Natasha Singer:

Continue reading →

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the officer had a tip that he had drugs. When consent was sought, defendant said only his luggage, memorialized on video. The officer started searching and searched the whole car, finding a hidden panel in the door. The search far exceeded the consent, and the search should have been suppressed. United States v. Cotton, 722 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

A padded case was immediately apparent to be a carrier for drug paraphernalia when it fell out of defendant’s glove compartment when he was retrieving his registration. State v. Furniss, 2013 Ohio 2064, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961 (5th Dist. May 13, 2013).

While the officer had information about defendant’s vehicle from earlier in the day, the apparently impaired driving was the basis for the stop. Hymes v. State, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 272 (May 21, 2013).*

Defendant passenger in a vehicle was not improperly seized by the officer’s asking the driver for consent, thereby allegedly extending the stop. State v. Ross, 256 Ore. App. 746, 304 P.3d 759 (2013).*

The police were in defendant’s apartment by consent to talk to him and get “his side of the story” about a domestic abuse involving assaulting and handcuffing his girlfriend when he admitted to having handcuffs. This admission was not during an illegal entry. State v. Harrison, 66 A.3d 432 (R.I. 2013).*

Mistake of law on applicability of a traffic law is an objectively unreasonable stop. Three guns suppressed. United States v. Nicholson, 721 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant put six “no trespassing” signs at his gate and on the road to his house which is not visible from the road. An officer came to the door to do a knock-and-talk. No meter readers come to his house, but the mailman [and presumably FedEx and UPS] could come from the road to the house with a letter or package that needed to be signed for. Merely putting up a “no trespassing” sign and the officer ignoring it is not a Fourth Amendment violation, and Jardines lends no support. United States v. Denim, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123269 (E.D. Tenn. August 26, 2013):

Continue reading →

Social service workers’ entry for inspection into plaintiffs’ home was governed by the Fourth Amendment and could not be justified by Wyman v. James. Bostrom v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121445 (D. N.J. August 26, 2013):

Continue reading →

The Hill: Google, Microsoft prepare for showdown over NSA spying by Brendan Sasso:

Continue reading →

HuffPo: Emily Craig, Shaun Bowden Allegedly Have Sex At Home Depot by Hilary Hanson, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/emily-craig-shaun-bowden-home-depot-sex-_n_3837573.html (imbedded URL doesn’t work):

Continue reading →

The Atlantic: Every Stop and Frisk in NYC in 2012, in 2 Charts | What an unconstitutional police policy looks like on the ground by Garance Franke-Ruta:

Continue reading →

Email accounts are protected by the Fourth Amendment under Warshuk. This warrant application fails the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment because of its lack of particularity and overbreadth. In re Search Warrants for Info. Associated with Target Email Accounts Skype Accounts, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123129 (D. Kan. August 27, 2013):

Continue reading →

Qualified immunity improperly granted to police officer who Tasered a handcuffed suspect lying on the ground. Questions of fact remained in this 1983 case. If the jury believes plaintiff, it was unreasonable. Wells v. City of Dearborn Heights, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17926, 2013 FED App. 0785N (6th Cir. August 26, 2013):

Continue reading →

There was PC for stopping defendant as a robbery suspect: He generally fit the description, was running away from the scene, and tried to evade the officer when seen. United States v. Bell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121159 (E.D. Va. August 23, 2013).*

Odor of marijuana in the car coupled with defendant’s admission he had it was reason for a search. United States v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121721 (D. V.I. August 27, 2013).*

Based on observations and wiretaps, police were watching defendant and were concerned that a gunfight was about to erupt. That was certainly reasonable suspicion and likely probable cause for the stop, and reasonable suspicion was all that was required. United States v. Henderson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121791 (D. Mass. August 27, 2013).*

The USMJ’s findings of fact on the third party consent issue of defendant’s wife is supported by the record and adopted as to authority and voluntariness of consent. United States v. Sharp, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121845 (E.D. Wis. August 27, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121843 (E.D. Wis. July 9, 2013).*

When an inventory needs to occur because a car had to be impounded because there was no person there with a valid DL, “law enforcement officers do not have to obtain consent in order to conduct an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle.” State v. Tyler, 177 Wn.2d 690, 302 P.3d 165 (2013):

Continue reading →

WaPo: Secret budget reveals a U.S. intelligence-gathering giant by Wilson Andrews and Todd Lindeman:

Continue reading →

CI’s claim he bought drugs from defendant was an admission against penal interest, confirmed by three controlled buys. Reid v. State, 321 Ga. App. 653, 742 S.E.2d 166 (2013).

Officers tailed a domestic violence suspect to defendant’s house with a dog, and they told the defendant they wanted to capture him. Defendant consented to the entry. The entry was strictly limited to finding the suspect, and a plain view was sustained. State v. Dancer, 174 Wn. App. 666, 300 P.3d 475 (2013).

Officers had reasonable suspicion to take defendant into custody as a parole violator. Defendant’s argument is noted that he was a potential crime victim, not a suspect, but it was reasonable to conclude that defendant might arm himself. “His desire to search Defendant was based on his experience and recognition that parolees who are threatened with violent crimes are more likely to obtain firearms to protect themselves. In light of the agent’s knowing that Defendant’s brother was shot and killed two days prior, and Agent Welsh’s receiving a call indicating that Defendant ‘would be next,’ it was reasonable, under the circumstances, to conclude that Defendant would likely have a firearm to protect himself.” United States v. Britton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62779 (M.D. Pa. May 2, 2013).*

Defendant was arrested for gross sexual imposition for attempting sex with an infant girl. DNA was taken from him incident to his arrest. The search incident doctrine didn’t support the search, but inevitable discovery did because the police were well into the investigation and would have otherwise obtained a warrant if they didn’t already have it. State v. Cundiff, 2013 Ohio 1806, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 1683 (10th Dist. May 2, 2013).*

Officers were looking for a gold car suspected of being involved in a burglary where women’s purses were stolen. The car was seen parked in another motel parking lot and purses were in plain view. The plain view was valid and the police had the right to be on the parking lot. Myers v. State, 321 Ga. App. 676, 742 S.E.2d 494 (2013).*

A man staggering on the sidewalk with blood coming from his head was subject to stop either for investigative detention or rendering emergency aid. State v. Engle, 2013 Ohio 1818, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 1695 (2d Dist. May 3, 2013).*

Defendant pulled into a hotel parking lot behind the defendant and defendant was already stopped when the officer got out to encounter him. Defendant had all the usual signs of being under the influence. Daniels v. State, 321 Ga. App. 748, 743 S.E.2d 440 (2013).*

Officers did a knock-and-talk on an apartment, and defendant let the officers in. He was acting nervous and kept putting his hands in his pockets. The officers told him to empty his pockets and he did, including drugs. This was all voluntary. State v. Reyes, 114 So. 3d 547 (La. App. 2 Cir. May 15, 2013).*

Pro se argument on appeal that the state failed to produce a consent form when that issue wasn’t addressed in the suppression motion was waived by lack of objection at the hearing. State v. Bailey, 115 So. 3d 739 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013).*

The informant in this case was not a CI but was a citizen informant reporting a crime, naming himself, and being willing to be accountable for the report. That was entitled to more credence. State v. T.S., 114 So. 3d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).*

Defendant was arrested for being a felon in possession of ammunition because his wife consulted with him on what gun to buy from a store and obtaining ammunition for it. There was nothing suspicious about her purchase of the firearm and officers had no knowledge defendant was a felon before the stop. The stop is suppressed. United States v. Siqueiros, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90532 (D. Ariz. May 17, 2013).*

Defendant claimed he was “sandbagged” by the state raising lack of standing at the close of the evidentiary hearing, but the defense made a conscious choice on standing, likely because it couldn’t prevail, and didn’t put any evidence or argument on. [Surely if the defense had something it could have gotten leave to reopen and put it on.] And, the officers had probable cause because defendant matched the description of a wanted man, dumped his bicycle and fled, and his companion, when asked his name, said “B,” the street name of the man they were looking for. Moulden v. State, 212 Md. App. 331, 69 A.3d 36 (2013).*

Defendant was validly arrested and then consented to a search of his vehicle because it was being towed after he volunteered he had a gun in the car. United States v. Williams, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90500 (E.D. Mo. June 11, 2013).*

Politico: President Obama’s surveillance board packed with insiders by Tony Romm:

Continue reading →