Reason: How Government Violates the Fourth Amendment Rights of Renters by Dan Wang:

Continue reading →

The Hill: Oracle CEO Ellison defends NSA spying as ‘great’ and ‘essential’ by Blake Neff:

Continue reading →

“Nevertheless, in cases involving arrests or warrantless searches or seizures, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they had even arguable probable cause. See Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 988, 996 (11th Cir. 1995); Eubanks v. Gerwen, 40 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 1994). Arguable probable cause exists if ‘reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defendants could have believed that probable cause existed.’ Swint, 51 F.3d at 996 (quotation marks omitted).” “[W]e conclude that, given the facts as we must view them for purposes of summary judgment, the officers lacked even arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into Feliciano’s apartment without a warrant or her consent.” Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2013).

“In view of the overwhelming authority and limited information obtained during the officers’ cursory investigation, reasonable officers would conclude that entering Nelms’s apartment without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Fleming and Whitt are not entitled to summary judgment on their defense of qualified immunity.” Nelms v. Wellington Way Apts., 513 Fed. Appx. 541 (6th Cir. 2013).

Probable cause for arrest grants qualified immunity to arresting officers. Abbott v. Oller, 497 Fed. Appx. 683 (8th Cir. 4, 2013).*

“‘[T]he existence of probable cause will defeat a claim of malicious prosecution and unreasonable search and seizure.’” Fahie v. Rivera, 510 Fed. Appx. 93 (2d Cir. 2013).*

Factual dispute on basis for arrest denies summary judgment. Pane v. Gramaglia, 509 Fed. Appx. 101 (2d Cir. 2013).*

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s arrest after a stop on information from a CI. United States v. Stallings, 513 Fed. Appx. 161 (3d Cir. 2013):

The following factors are relevant to this inquiry:

(1) [whether] the information was provided to the police in a face-to-face interaction, allowing an officer to assess directly the informant’s credibility;
(2) [whether] the informant can be held responsible if her allegations are untrue;
(3) [whether] the information would not be available to the ordinary observer;
(4) [whether] the informant has recently witnessed the criminal activity at issue; and
(5) [whether] the witness’s information accurately predicts future activity.

Johnson, 592 F.3d at 449. However, “a tip need not bear all of the indicia-or even any particular indicium-to supply reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Torres, 534 F.3d 207, 213 (3d Cir. 2008).

When defendant said that he had a lot of money in the car, the officer was justified in inventorying it for self-protection [Ha! Isn’t the dashcam protection enough? Not that it matters because it would have been found anyway:] The car also smelled of marijuana and defendant admitted he was carrying. That was probable cause. There was also a wiretap with information from pre-Jones GPS surveillance. Striking those references still left probable cause for the wiretaps, even assuming that Davis doesn’t carry the day for the government. United States v. Sellers, 512 Fed. Appx. 319 (4th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant’s nervous and erratic behavior while officers were ticketing him was reasonable suspicion to detain him longer. State v. Houston, 2013 Ohio 686, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 606 (4th Dist. February 7, 2013).*

Plaintiff’s being asked for consent after he lawyered up was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Flynn v. James, 513 Fed. Appx. 37 (1st Cir. 2013).*

Officers had an objective basis for defendant’s probation search under California law, and his subjective intent claim fails. Defense counsel was thus not ineffective for not challenging the search. Quevedo v. Kramer, 510 Fed. Appx. 616 (9th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant pulled up and approached officers nearby a house where a DV call had been made. Alcohol on his breath justified detention. Durrance v. State, 319 Ga. App. 866, 738 S.E.2d 692 (2013).*

WaPo op-ed: What NSA reforms? by Eugene Robinson:

President Obama’s message about the government’s massive electronic surveillance programs came through loud and clear: Get over it.

AOL: Georgia Police Allegedly Caught On Video Threatening To ‘Cane,’ ‘Tase,’ And ‘Kill’ by Dan Fastenberg, all while serving a misdemeanor arrest warrant at 1:30 am. The homeowner recorded most of it.

Why say “alleged” unless you don’t understand basic English?

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the officer thought it suspicious that he insisted on calling his lawyer on his cell phone. (Never before in 1,000 stops.) The officer told him not to and he did anyway. Defendant also wouldn’t look at the officer and his breathing escalated. All this added up to reasonable suspicion. By this time, bystanders were accumulating and talking to the officers. “Another individual complained that law enforcement was ‘“always bothering people”’” or words to that effect. They called in a drug dog, and that was “a moment of truth” because, if the dog alerted, a search would occur, but if it didn’t, defendant would be let go. The officer entered the car over defendant’s objection to turn on the fan and roll up the windows to make it more likely that the dog would alert, and the dog did alert. That entry violated the Fourth Amendment under Jones because it trespassed on the interior of the car. United States v. Taylor, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68388 (S.D. W.Va. May 14, 2013), adopted in part 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113235 (S.D. W.Va. August 12, 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendants get no discovery on the issue of 2009 placement of the GPS device on their car because they can’t win on the GPS issue anyway because of Davis. Despite their best efforts to conjure up an argument, it won’t go anywhere. United States v. Arceo-Rangel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112785 (E.D. Cal. August 8, 2013):

Continue reading →

A search warrant for files in a white collar case permitted a search of a desk. United States v. Morgan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112480 (E.D. Tenn. August 9, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113402 (E.D. Tenn. June 24, 2013).

Defendant’s wife had standing to consent to a complete search of defendant’s vehicle and a duffle bag in the back seat. He was 100′ away by his own volition, and the police weren’t circumventing him as a source of consent. United States v. Scott, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111790 (E.D. Tenn. August 8, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112648 (E.D. Tenn. July 9, 2013).

A person driving a car with permission of the owner has standing to challenge its search. Officers were justified in a frisk in a high crime area where people were seen carrying guns in the past, and defendant’s conduct was such that was effectively resisting contact with officers and a frisk, heightening their fear he might be armed. United States v. Ray, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111852 (D. Neb. July 15, 2013).*

Constitution Center: How NSA surveillance endangers the Fourth Amendment by Jonathan Hafetz:

Continue reading →

The fact the Sheriff’s Office “did not ordinarily issue citations for window tint violations is immaterial” if there was, in fact, probable cause to believe there was a window tint violation. United States v. Parker, 512 Fed. Appx. 991 (11th Cir. 2013)*:

Continue reading →

Based on all the totality of circumstances, the facts support the trial court’s findings of consent. It was significant here that defendant was Mirandized before consent. State v. Lemonte, 108 So. 3d 1271 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013).*

Defendant was driving a rental car but wasn’t an authorized driver. She was excessively nervous when stopped, and there was an overwhelming odor of raw marijuana coming from the car. That was justification to continue the stop longer. State v. Cooks, 108 So. 3d 1257 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013).*

The statute of limitations on plaintiff’s § 1983 case had long passed by the time this case was filed. Labeling it a “continuing wrong” because relief hasn’t been granted doesn’t work. Voneida v. Stoehr, 512 Fed. Appx. 219 (3d Cir. 2013).*

Chewed baggie with white powder seen during a traffic stop was probable cause. State v. Simons, 2013 UT 3, 726 Utah Adv. Rep. 32, 296 P.3d 721 (2013).*

Sound of movement within the house during defendant’s arrest justified a protective sweep. Weddle v. State, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 289 (June 19, 2013).

Noise from the bedroom during defendant’s arrest justified a protective sweep of the bedroom. Kerr v. Commonwealth, 400 S.W.3d 250 (Ky. 2013)

Consent was valid. Defendant wasn’t Mirandized, but he was told he had a right to refuse consent. Crocker v. State, 989 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. App. 2013).

A random license plate check justified the stop of defendant’s car for failure to transfer tag. Defendant was a passenger. When the officer ran his name, a felony no-contact violation warrant came back. The arrest was justified. State v. Bonds, 174 Wn. App. 553, 299 P.3d 663 (2013).*

There is no requirement for a warning for a second test for blood after the warned first test. Defendant consented. Commonwealth v. Gorbea-Lespier, 2013 PA Super 96, 66 A.3d 382 (2013).*

Officers came to do a knock-and-talk and encountered people outside. Before knocking, there was a strong odor of marijuana around the trailer. Based on this, they could detain the people outside so they couldn’t warn the people inside. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 2013 PA Super 95, 68 A.3d 930 (2013).*

Odor of marijuana coming from defendant’s car was probable cause, even if defendant denied smoking it. United States v. Richmond, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59021 (S.D. Ind. April 25, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped at night, and he made a furtive movement below his seat. He was nervous when talked to. The officer got him out and frisked him finding nothing. The officer then searched the area defendant was sitting in, and a gun was found. Furtive movements alone are not reasonable suspicion. Add nervousness, and it is. The trial court’s order suppressing the gun was reversed. Commonwealth v. Buchert, 2013 PA Super 81, 68 A.3d 911 (2013).

Officers properly conducted a protective sweep when responding to a shooting call. A later search warrant for the premises was not based on stale information about the gun just because a picture had been seen with defendant holding the gun from two years earlier. “Again, appellant’s argument is patently meritless. The July 18, 2008 affidavit was more than sufficient for a search warrant to issue regardless of the allegation concerning the October 2006 photograph. Police did not recover the murder weapon and they had new information that it may be stashed under the floor boards in the attic. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress physical evidence.” Commonwealth v. Harrell, 2013 PA Super 82, 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 222 (April 12, 2013).*

NYDN: NYC pays $363,500 to suspects beaten, falsely arrested by narcotics cops by Barry Paddock AND Greg B. Smith:

Continue reading →

BuzzFeed: This Is What It Looks Like When Your Phone Tracks Your Every Move by Charlie Warzel:

Sure, we know we’re being tracked, but now we know what it looks like.

The officer here stalled the defendant with conversation that led to no reasonable suspicion in an effort to give the drug dog time to arrive: Suppressed. State v. Hanrahan, 2013 Iowa App. LEXIS 844 (August 7, 2013):

Continue reading →