ABAJ: Innocent people face loss of their homes because of drug charges against family members by Debra Cassens Weiss:

Continue reading →

Bona fide emergency pinging of defendant’s cell phone to find him did not violate the Stored Communications Act or the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Caraballo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112739 (D. Vt. August 7, 2013):

Continue reading →

CNET: FBI pressures Internet providers to install surveillance software by Declan McCullagh:

Continue reading →

Salon.com: The NSA-DEA police state tango | This week’s DEA bombshell shows us how the drug war and the terror war have poisoned our justice system by Andrew O’Hehir:

Continue reading →

WaPo: In New York, stop, frisk and think by Editorial Board:

PERHAPS THE most puzzling aspect of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s staunch opposition to any criticism of the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) controversial “stop and frisk” policy is the flippancy with which he dismisses concerns over racial profiling.

WaPo: Lawmakers say obstacles limited oversight of NSA’s telephone surveillance program by Peter Wallsten:

Continue reading →

New Yorker: Taken by Sarah Stillman:

Under civil forfeiture, Americans who haven’t been charged with wrongdoing can be stripped of their cash, cars, and even homes. Is that all we’re losing?

New Yorker: SWAT-Team Nation by Sarah Stillman:

Continue reading →

NYDN: Texas state troopers caught on camera probing women’s privates aren’t isolated incidents by Deborah Hastings:

Continue reading →

In the For What It’s Worth Dept., yesterday afternoon, a DEA agent admitted on stand in a detention hearing in the Eastern District of Arkansas getting NSA intel on the defendant for opening the investigation. He was asked for the information by defense counsel, and he refused, saying it was up to the AUSA. Whether the court was asked to order it, I don’t know.

This is from defense counsel handling the hearing who told me. Coincidentally, on Friday I hand delivered to the Chief Judge of this district a letter requesting the standing discovery order covering NSA intel. No answer, of course.

So, when the Government tells us they’re not spying on Americans, they’re lying.

Data from GPS devices do not fall within the language of the Massachusetts wiretap statute. Here, there was probable cause for installation of a court ordered GPS tracking device in the investigation of serial arsons. The Massachusetts court also determined that the passenger had standing to challenge the use of GPS too because his movements were also logged because he was in the car. Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 465 Mass. 372, 990 N.E.2d 543 (2013):

Continue reading →

Saint Jesus Malverde medal, the patron saint of drug dealers, hanging from the mirror of a car is not reasonable suspicion alone. There was no reasonable suspicion on the totality. Defendant was, however, told of his right to refuse consent before consenting and that broke the causal chain. State v. Meza-Garcia, 256 Ore. App. 798, 303 P.3d 975 (2013):

Continue reading →

Officers were called to a domestic disturbance that involved only yelling and nobody hurt. In the time they were there, they got around to conducting a “protective sweep” of the entire apartment. The last place to look was a closet, and inside were six marijuana plants under a growlight. The sweep was unreasonable. State v. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64, 348 Wis. 2d 179, 831 N.W.2d 778 (2013):

Continue reading →

A railroad and the City of Fond de Lac were engaged in negotiations to replace a crossing with an overpass. The Wisconsin DOT wanted a soil sample off the right of way as part of its due diligence to construct the overpass. Relocating crossings and railroad right of way is subject to state law, always has been, and it’s clearly highly regulated. The court even cites the railroad drug testing case of Skinner. [Not even mentioned is implied consent from agreeing to a study and open fields because how does a railroad have a right of privacy on a railroad track?] Wisconsin Central Ltd v. Gottlieb, 2013 WI App 61, 348 Wis. 2d 141, 832 N.W.2d 359 (2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant was not under arrest, although handcuffed six feet behind his car, so a search incident was invalid under any theory. There was no PC for the automobile exception. There was no justification for a protective sweep for weapons. Opening the car door for the drug dog was an invalid search. United States v. Mitchell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111535 (E.D. Mich. August 8, 2013):

Continue reading →

WaPo: Obama announces proposals to reform NSA surveillance by Scott Wilson and Zachary A. Goldfarb:

Continue reading →

MotherJones: Defense Attorneys Plan to Fight NSA Evidence in Drug Cases by Kevin Drum

Continue reading →

PO had reasonable suspicion that defendant was using a computer in violation of his terms of release. He was the only person in the place, and the computer was on and a lit cigarette was in an ashtray next to it. The seizure of the computer was reasonable under the terms of release. United States v. Majeroni, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111338 (D. Me. May 31, 2013).*

Defendant had no valid DL, so the officer gave him the option of calling somebody to get the car or have it towed. He chose to call somebody, and that was the reason the stop was extended, and it was completely legitimate. United States v. Lyvers, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111061 (E.D. Ky. August 7, 2013).*

The totality of information provided reasonable suspicion of alien smuggling. United States v. Gonzalez-Saucedo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111302 (D. Ariz. July 4, 2013).*

Defendant who was loaned a car and had the keys in his pocket had standing to challenge its search. Officers were reasonable in perceiving him as a possible threat of having a weapon on him when they frisked him, despite protestations of others that he was not a threat, even if they were reasonably mistaken in that assessment. United States v. Ray, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111852 (D. Neb. July 15, 2013).*

Defendant’s stop was reasonable for touching the fog line and changing lanes without signaling, and claims of pretext fail. During the stop, the small talk led to reasonable suspicion for further detention and finally consent was granted. United States v. Santillian, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111376 (S.D. N.Y. August 6, 2013).*

Defendant’s wife had apparent authority to consent to a search of a duffle bag in the back of their car. Nothing indicated that it was his or hers. United States v. Scott, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111790 (E.D. Tenn. August 8, 2013).*

The stop of defendant’s tractor trailer was valid, and it ended with the officer saying “That’s it! Take care!” but he called out to the defendant and engaged him in conversation which turned into a valid consent for continued detention. On the video, defendant consents repeatedly. United States v. Fouse, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110317 (N.D. Okla. August 6, 2013).* [I never could buy into this “consensual continued detention” stuff. When a cop is talking to you, you’re not free to leave because, at least in this state, you’d be arrested for either fleeing or failing to obey a lawful order of the police. The cops know it, and the judges know it, and they let the cops get away with it. Period. End of discussion. This is pure judicial cognitive dissonance legalizing fiction and total deference to the police as the purported guardians of our freedom on the highway.]

The record supports the USMJ conclusion of consent from the driver. United States v. Araiza-Carrillo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110552 (W.D. Ark. August 6, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110561 (W.D. Ark. July 17, 2013).*

2255 petition already denied on Fourth Amendment claim, and petitioner’s attempt to recast them as an actual innocence claim fails. United States v. Martinez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109778 (D. Minn. August 5, 2013).*

2255 petition’s Fourth Amendment claim barred because it was raised on direct appeal. United States v. Opiyo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110026 (N.D. Tex. August 5, 2013).*

Officers lacked reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop for (1) impeding traffic by opening his door when there was no traffic to impede, and (2) parking too close to a stop sign when the driver and passenger merely exchanged seats. The motion to suppress the stop is granted. United States v. Hutton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109779 (M.D. Tenn. August 2, 2013).*

Defendant’s admission he was a felon with a gun in the car was probable cause for a search of the car. United States v. Gardner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110467 (E.D. N.C. August 1, 2013).*