There was probable cause to arrest defendant for bank fraud. Even assuming this bank fraud investigation was tainted because it relied on an alleged unadjudicated unconstitutional search in Los Angeles in a similar scheme, this was clearly attenuated. There was PC without it. At most, only his name was learned from Los Angeles. Officers knew that defendant was using a laptop from public access points to communicate with the bank he was attempting to defraud. When arrested, he had the bag on him. The bag was inventoried, and the cell phones were put into “airplane” mode and then in a protective “Faraday” bag so they could not be remotely wiped. This was reasonable. Also, the district court credited the officers on complying with the FBI’s inventory policy. United States v. Smith, 715 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

United Liberty: House committee approves email privacy reform by Jason Pye

Continue reading →

A juvenile’s forced DUI testing under an implied consent law violated the Fourth Amendment. State v. Butler, 661 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 33, 302 P.3d 609 (2013):

Continue reading →

NPR: Clever Hacks Give Google Glass Many Unintended Powers by Steve Henn:

Continue reading →

Ladybud.com: 5 GA Policemen Strap Down Young Woman After She Refuses Breathalyzer (VIDEO) by Leslie Salzillo:

Continue reading →

ACLU.org: ACLU Challenges 67 Days of Warrantless Cell Phone Location Tracking by Nathan Freed Wessler:

Continue reading →

A tennis ball in defendant’s pocket found during a patdown could be removed because the officer couldn’t tell what it was. When it was removed, a plastic bag could be seen though a cut in it. This is different than Dickerson. State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 736 S.E.2d 663 (2013).

Defendant was a police officer living in a rental house owned by his parents, and he had a computer in the commonly used basement. His mother had access to it and turned it on finding child pornography, which she reported. She had common authority to consent to a search of the basement. Extra hard drives in a box were in plain view, and the officers’ knowledge gave them reason to believe the incriminating nature was immediately apparent. The hard drives could be seized for a later search with a warrant. State v. Reinpold, 284 Neb. 950, 824 N.W.2d 713 (January 4, 2013).

The officer had reasonable suspicion for a continued stop based on excessive nervousness and inability to say where she had come from or was going. United States v. Fajardo-Guevara, 507 Fed. Appx. 365 (5th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant’s basement was subjected to a valid private search by his landlord where the landlord could access the basement at will. Stolen air conditioners were hidden there, and the landlord photographed them and told the police who got a search warrant. State v. Hughes, 2013 Ohio 459, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 398 (5th Dist. February 8, 2013);* State v. Hughes, 2013 Ohio 458, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 397 (5th Dist. February 8, 2013).*

A GPS placed at the border pre-Jones was valid under Davis. United States v. Williams, 507 Fed. Appx. 728 (9th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant was accused with others of running a meth lab out of a shed that the police thought was abandoned. He claimed it was family property, but he failed to show an expectation of privacy in it and he fares no better than the drug operation in Carter. United States v. Skoda, 705 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant had no standing in a car rented to another who was the only authorized driver. He also could not challenge placement of a GPS on it. (No proof of permission to drive.) Wilson v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 337, 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 358 (May 22, 2013).

Defendant left his cell phone in a stolen van used in a bank robbery. The search of the cell phone was under the automobile exception, but it was sanitized by a search warrant to look for information about an accomplice. That was an independent source. The accomplice information surfaced months later, and the SW was sought a week later. United States v. Brooks, 715 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2013).*

The officer was legitimately concerned there was a weapon in the car because of the passenger’s furtive movements as the vehicle was pulled over. The gun was finally retrieved 15 minutes into the stop, and this was with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Forney, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74624 (W.D. N.C. May 28, 2013).*

Daily Kos: Why the Fourth Amendment Sucks (And Doesn’t Prevent Mass Electronic Surveillance): A Factual History by Hamden Rice:

Continue reading →

Volokh: Thoughts on Orin’s Thoughts on Existing Fourth Amendment Doctrine by Randy Barnett:

Continue reading →

“Respondent Kim Maurice Fuerst’s decision to silently remain behind a locked door inside his home did not constitute an express refusal of consent to a police search. Therefore, Fuerst’s wife’s free and voluntary consent to the search of the couple’s home was valid as to Fuerst.” People v. Fuerst, 2013 CO 28, 302 P.3d 253 (2013).

Defendant’s girlfriend was a cousin of a police officer investigating defendant, and she freely and voluntarily consented to search of her place finding stuff to use against defendant. State v. Blevins, 2013 W. Va. LEXIS 503 (May 20, 2013).*

The credibility on consent goes to the officers stopping defendant because the stop was based on a burned out brake light, something disprovable by a cell phone picture that anybody could take (but nobody did). If they wanted to come up with a bogus reason for the stop, it would have been something not provable at all, like crossing the centerline or not coming to a complete stop. United States v. Kelley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71785 (E.D. Ark. May 21, 2013).*

HuffPo: Grasping for Dignity in the Era of the American Police State by John W. Whitehead, Attorney, President of The Rutherford Institute:

Continue reading →

TechDirt: 7 Months Of Warrantless ‘Just Metadata’ Paints A Clear Picture Of Your Personal Life (brief attached):

from the anyone-still-believe-this-info-shouldn’t-be-protected? dept

Continue reading →

Re Clapper v. Amnesty International: NYT: A Secret Surveillance Program Proves Challengeable in Theory Only by Adam Liptak:

Continue reading →

Officers heard defendant was manufacturing meth at his house. When they arrived, they found him tending a fire pit and he walked to meet them. “ One of the deputies asked Mr. Oldham if he could ‘look around’ the fire pit area to verify that he was burning copper wire, not manufacturing methamphetamine. Mr. Oldham agreed.” At the fire pit, one of the officers saw a pill bottle which he opened. That exceeded the scope of defendant’s consent, and the suppression motion should have been granted. Oldham v. State, 113 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013):

Continue reading →

The oath or affirmation requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a probation arrest warrant. A warrant is not required for a probation search; it is illogical to require one for retaking a probationer for violation of the terms of release. People v. Woodall, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1221, 157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 220 (4th Dist. 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant consented to view a contact in her cell phone. She showed the phone and the officer never touched it. United States v. Wright-Darrisaw, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96421 (W.D. N.Y. May 2, 2013).*

Even assuming defense counsel filed a motion to suppress and it was granted, there was a wealth of other information at trial that convicted the defendant, and there’s no reasonable probability of a different outcome. United States v. Murphy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97149 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2013).*

The officer here stopped defendant “late at night” on I-20 for a window tint violation, and could smell marijuana coming from the car after the stop. That led to defendant’s arrest, and the vehicle would have to be towed, so there was an inventory that produced more drugs. The inventory was valid. Beville v. State, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 583 (July 3, 2013).*

Arrest of a co-conspirator outside created exigency for warrantless police entry into the house for drugs, after nobody answered the door and the police knew there were people inside. United States v. Romero, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97055 (M.D. Ala. June 18, 2013):

Continue reading →

Italian police discovered a child pornography website in Pennsylvania, and alerted police there. The provider of the website was searched, and links to defendant’s usage were found. The 13 month old information not stale. United States v. Kreitzer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96660 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2013):

Continue reading →