CAAF: Inventory of injured soldier’s computer content violated the Fourth Amendment

Defendant was injured by an IED while serving in the Army in Iraq, and he was medically evacuated from Iraq. His property was inventoried pursuant to Army regulation. His computer was subject to inventory for things “gore, inappropriate, or porn” and for classified material before the computer was returned to him, and child pornography was found. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that the inventory of the computer violated the Fourth Amendment and M.R.E. 313(c). United States v. Kelly, 72 M.J. 237 (C.A. A.F. 2013):

Continue reading →

Comments Off on CAAF: Inventory of injured soldier’s computer content violated the Fourth Amendment

CA6: Clearly erroneous explained again

Crediting the officers’ testimony that defendant consented to a patdown that produced a sawed-off shotgun was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Oldham, 506 Fed. Appx. 465 (6th Cir. 2012). Clearly erroneous explained:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on CA6: Clearly erroneous explained again

CA3: Drawing of weapons on a perceived potentially violent arrestee was not unreasonable

The center brake light wasn’t working, and that justified defendant’s stop under state law (at least there was reasonable suspicion for it). The officer recognized defendant as a recent arrestee and shooting victim, and saw furtive movements. The officer went where the movements were and recovered a machine pistol. The search there was reasonable, and the drawing of guns was not excessive. United States v. Jones, 506 Fed. Appx. 128 (3d Cir. 2012).*

Defendant was stopped with reasonable suspicion where the vehicle and driver matched the description of a vehicle involved in a bank robbery. The defendant was cooperative, and, when he smiled, the officer could see a chipped tooth which was described by the robbery victims. The stop and its continuation was all with reasonable suspicion ripening to probable cause. United States v. Farnell, 701 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 2012).*

The CI’s reliability for this search warrant was shown by officer corroboration of information, not by his past performance. United States v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171552 (E.D. Mich. November 28, 2012).*

Comments Off on CA3: Drawing of weapons on a perceived potentially violent arrestee was not unreasonable

CA7: Nervousness alone is not enough for RS; it is just a factor

Nervousness alone is not reasonable suspicion, but it is a valid factor to consider with other things, and other things were present here [and they are thin]. Defendant’s 39 minute detention was not unreasonable. United States v. Bueno, 703 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2013):

Some nervousness around law enforcement officials is to be expected, however, and we have expressed skepticism regarding the value of such observations. See United States v. Broomfield, 417 F.3d 654, 655 (7th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, while “the appearance of anxiety may not by itself form an objective basis for suspecting criminal activity,” McBride, 635 F.3d at 882 (citation omitted), we consider such behavior as a factor in the totality of circumstances, United States v. Brown, 188 F.3d 860, 865 (7th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, exclusion didn’t apply in civil removal proceedings. The record supports the BIA and IJ determination that the conduct of the agents was not egregious (which would support exclusion). Santos v. Holder, 506 Fed. Appx. 263 (5th Cir. 2013).*

Comments Off on CA7: Nervousness alone is not enough for RS; it is just a factor

CA9: Lower court clearly erred in finding consent to search truck

District Court clearly erred in finding that defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his truck. On this record, it wasn’t voluntary. United States v. Perez, 506 Fed. Appx. 672 (9th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

Comments Off on CA9: Lower court clearly erred in finding consent to search truck

D.N.M. rejects that person living here 3 years without documentation has no standing in his own home

The government argued, and lost, that defendant being here illegally for three years meant he had no standing in his own abode. No, says the court; he does have standing. United States v. Aispuro-Haros, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188526 (D. N.M. October 24, 2012):

Continue reading →

Comments Off on D.N.M. rejects that person living here 3 years without documentation has no standing in his own home

D.Utah: Defendant had no standing as to search of car, but had standing to search of luggage in trunk

Defendant was not the renter of a car and was not on the rental agreement as an authorized driver. He said it was rented by his sister, but he couldn’t name her. So, he had no standing in the car. He did, however, have standing in luggage and a box in the trunk when he asserted ownership of them and objected to their search. A dog sniff gave probable cause, and the automobile exception supports the search. United States v. McCoy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91454 (D. Utah June 27, 2013):

Continue reading →

Comments Off on D.Utah: Defendant had no standing as to search of car, but had standing to search of luggage in trunk

GA: Mexican DL and lack of documentation of a border crossing is probable cause to arrest for no DL

Mexican DL and lack of passport or other documentation of a border crossing is probable cause to arrest for no DL. Garcia-Carillio v. State, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 541 (June 27, 2013).*

Defendant’s stop was justified by too much smoke coming from a too loud muffler. State v. Asanov, 2013 Ohio 2754, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2797 (2d Dist. June 28, 2013).*

3:35 am 911 call of a drunk person in a car on a parking lot came from an identified source leaving name and address, and it was specific enough to support a stop. State v. Parson, 2013 Ohio 2763, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2798 (2d Dist. June 28, 2013).*

Comments Off on GA: Mexican DL and lack of documentation of a border crossing is probable cause to arrest for no DL

TN: Possibility of destruction of evidence as exigency requires showing; it potentially always exists

Officers did not violate the curtilage by following the driveway to the apparent door of the home, which was in back, to conduct a nighttime knock-and-talk. Since defendant was not awakened, the court doesn’t consider it unreasonable as to time. Officers did, however, violate the Fourth Amendment by pulling defendant out and searching based on alleged exigent circumstances of their own making. It did not, however, mandate suppression of the evidence because the officers did succeed in showing an independent source for the information that went into the search warrant. State v. Whitaker, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 570 (June 28, 2013):

Continue reading →

Comments Off on TN: Possibility of destruction of evidence as exigency requires showing; it potentially always exists

ACLU.org: Fighting a Striking Case of Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking

ACLU.org: Fighting a Striking Case of Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking by Bennett Stein:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on ACLU.org: Fighting a Striking Case of Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking

Reason.com: Ohio Cops Use Fake Drug Checkpoint to Dodge Fourth Amendment

Reason.com: Ohio Cops Use Fake Drug Checkpoint to Dodge Fourth Amendment by Jacob Sullum:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on Reason.com: Ohio Cops Use Fake Drug Checkpoint to Dodge Fourth Amendment

Arkansas Business: Dear Feds, Stop This Regulation

Arkansas Business: Dear Feds, Stop This Regulation (Editorial) about the JB Hunt drug testing program that exceeds federal regulation, posted here, urging that positive hair test results be shared; UAs can, but hair tests can’t”

Continue reading →

Comments Off on Arkansas Business: Dear Feds, Stop This Regulation

The Gothamist: Bloomberg Thinks NYPD Stops-And-Frisks Too Many White People, Not Enough Minorities

The Gothamist: Bloomberg Thinks NYPD Stops-And-Frisks Too Many White People, Not Enough Minorities by Ben Yakas:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on The Gothamist: Bloomberg Thinks NYPD Stops-And-Frisks Too Many White People, Not Enough Minorities

NYT: Judge Says Police and U.S. Agents Misled Court in Manhattan Gun Possession Case

NYT: Judge Says Police and U.S. Agents Misled Court in Manhattan Gun Possession Case by Benjamin Weiser. The Franks hearing that never was, and it was revealed at trial:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on NYT: Judge Says Police and U.S. Agents Misled Court in Manhattan Gun Possession Case

FL5: When not detained, “you got any weapons or drugs on you” doesn’t require Miranda

A man near a food truck was “uttering threats,” and police were called. They found defendant sitting on the curb and they asked if he “had any weapons or drugs on him.” Defendant said he had “some blow.” He was not in custody until he made the admission, which is admissible. State v. Janusheske, 111 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Defendant was arrested and placed in a police car. They went in the house to get a rifle, and the entry was without consent or exigent circumstances. It was, however, harmless error with multiple witnesses seeing the shooting. State v. White, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 351 (April 25, 2013).*

14 day old information in an ongoing drug trafficking operation was not stale. United States v. Vernon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59539 (M.D. Fla. April 25, 2013).*

Comments Off on FL5: When not detained, “you got any weapons or drugs on you” doesn’t require Miranda

CA10: Several factors + flight = RS

There were several factors of reasonable suspicion, individually none might be enough but collectively they were. “In this case, several factors—the most important of which was Mr. Guardado’s own evasive behavior—converged to create an objectively reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, we hold that the seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Guardado, 699 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2012).*

The state’s comment that defendant hesitated before signing the consent to search the car was not important because defendant consented. It was merely mentioned in recounting the facts of finding evidence. Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012).*

The evidence clearly supports the conclusion that the search of the house occurred with probable cause after marijuana was seen after a consent entry. Jones v. State, 318 Ga. App. 614, 734 S.E.2d 450 (2012).*

Comments Off on CA10: Several factors + flight = RS

Face the Nation: Former NSA, CIA director: “The United States does conduct espionage”

Face the Nation: Former NSA, CIA director: “The United States does conduct espionage” by Lindsey Boerma:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on Face the Nation: Former NSA, CIA director: “The United States does conduct espionage”

WaPo: Number of federal wiretaps rose 71 percent in 2012

WaPo: Number of federal wiretaps rose 71 percent in 2012 by Peter Finn:

The number of wiretaps secured in federal criminal investigations jumped 71 percent in 2012 over the previous year, according to newly released figures.

Federal courts authorized 1,354 interception orders for wire, oral and electronic communications, up from 792 the previous year, according to the figures, released Friday by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. There was a 5 percent increase in state and local use of wiretaps in the same period.

Comments Off on WaPo: Number of federal wiretaps rose 71 percent in 2012

Center for Investigative Reporting: Police License Plate Scanners Record Driver’s Locations

Center for Investigative Reporting: Police License Plate Scanners Record Driver’s Locations by Ali Winston:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on Center for Investigative Reporting: Police License Plate Scanners Record Driver’s Locations

NYT Opinion: Privacy and the Threat to the Self

NYT Opinion: Privacy and the Threat to the Self by Michael P. Lynch:

Continue reading →

Comments Off on NYT Opinion: Privacy and the Threat to the Self