Defendant’s girlfriend saw child pornography on his computer and called the police. She showed it to them, and it was reasonable for the police to seize the computer at that point without a warrant. They got a warrant to search it. United States v. Benoit, 713 F.3d 1 (10th Cir. 2013):

Continue reading →

A home study had been ordered of defendant’s house. A social worker arrived to do it with two officers watching from a car. Defendant refused to permit the social worker to enter, and, from the officers’ perspective, he was getting agitated talking about it and would not let her enter. The police entry could not be justified on any exigency or community caretaking function. Ross v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 752, 739 S.E.2d 910 (2013):

Continue reading →

ABAJ.com: Prosecutors’ use of mobile phone tracking is ‘junk science,’ critics say by Mark Hansen:

At his trial last year on federal kidnapping and conspiracy charges, prosecutors sought to introduce cell tower evidence purporting to show that calls placed from defendant Antonio Evans’ cellphone could have come from his aunt’s house, where the victim was thought to have been held for ransom.

That’s not unusual. Hardly a day goes by when some prosecutor doesn’t go to court armed with cell tower evidence he or she claims places a defendant in the vicinity of a crime the defendant is accused of committing.

What made the Evans case unusual was the fact that the defense even put up a fight to keep the cell tower evidence out of the trial. Evans’ lawyers said the technique has not been shown to be scientific.

Frequent overnight guest and babysitter had standing to challenge a search of the premises while she was there. The state’s argument she had no expectation of privacy in the baby’s room when she made the 911 call was waived because it wasn’t raised in the trial court. A 911 call is not a waiver of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home. State v. Elrod, 395 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App. – Austin 2013):

Continue reading →

The entirety of papers for a search warrant for a Yahoo! email account appeared on Lexis yesterday along with an order unsealing in substantial part: Application for Search Warrant for Email Account [Name Redacted by the Court] Maintained on Computer Servers Operated by Yahoo! Headquartered at 701 First Ave., Sunnyvale, CA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73968 (D.D.C. May 22, 2013) (not yet available on court’s website).

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, but it was completed and defendant was not under the influence, so he told “have a good night,” but the stop didn’t end as the officer kept talking to the passengers. That unreasonably extended the stop. Turley v. Commonwealth, 2013 Ky. LEXIS 231 (May 23, 2013):

Continue reading →

Motion for stay of order to get out the NOPD consent decree pending appeal denied. The City of New Orleans on behalf of the NOPD entered into a consent decree with USDOJ over “(1) the use of force; (2) investigatory stops and detentions, searches, and arrests; (3) custodial interrogations; (4) photographic lineups; (5) bias-free policing; (6) community engagement; (7) recruitment; (8) training; (9) officer assistance and support; (10) performance evaluations and promotions; (11) supervision; (12) the secondary employment system, also known as the paid detail system; (13) misconduct complaint intake, investigation, and adjudication; and (14) transparency and oversight.” It wants out but can’t do anything for lack of money, and lack of funding doesn’t justify violations of constitutional rights. United States v. City of New Orleans, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73863 (E.D. La. May 24, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

NYTimes.com: Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner by Nathaniel Rich:

I have never walked through an airport body scanner — or, as I think of it, “the cancer machine.” In the years since these radiation chambers began appearing in airports across the United States, I have developed a variety of tricks to avoid submitting myself to them.

If the suppression issue is complicated, the court refuses to resolve it, and turns instead straight to the good faith exception. United States v. LaBatte, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45261 (D. S.D. March 25, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73243 (D.S.D. May 23, 2013):

In light of staleness issues, those pertaining to the reliability of the juvenile informants, certain conclusory allegations, the over-seizure of evidence and the manner in which the supporting application was filled out, ascertaining — definitively — whether the search warrant comported with Fourth Amendment strictures is no easy task, given the facts and circumstances present. The Court, however, need not engage in this complicated exercise because there is a simpler and more straight forward way to resolve the overarching constitutional question: The “good-faith” exception to the warrant requirement.

Note: This is not the first time I’ve seen a court just throw up its hands to a motion to suppress as too complicated to resolve. Instead, the court just turns to the good faith exception and says that the warrant is fine. There is a moral here: Defense counsel should focus the motion to suppress better and even cut out a lot of cases. If you have six issues of why the warrant fails, make it appear obvious and argue that the total failure of the warrant completely undermines the probable cause. Alternatively, pick one or two and go with that. (Take heed from Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52 (1983): “Experienced advocates since time beyond memory have emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on one central issue if possible, or at most on a few key issues.”)

I confess that I’ve read plenty of affidavits where the GFE was looming, and the PC under Gates was close enough that I knew the court was never going to suppress.

Back to blog

Reasonable suspicion can support a stop for driving in tandem, but here it was lacking. United States v. Espino-Urvan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73809 (S.D. N.Y. May 21, 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant who rented a basement bedroom from another for the purpose of conducting a drug deal didn’t have standing to contest a search of the room when he holed up there after a bank robbery. He wasn’t an overnight guest or anything like that. United States v. Edwards, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72855 (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2013).*

Defendant was an internet traveler who came to town to meet up with a fictitious 13 year old girl, and that was reasonable suspicion for the stop. State v. Vanorsdel, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 630 (Mo. App. May 23, 2013).*

There was a basis for plaintiff’s arrest, so his false arrest case fails. Flowers v. City of Diboll, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6350 (Tex. App. – Tyler May 22, 2013).*

Sen. Rand Paul’s bill to ensure adequate protection of the rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not available on the Library of Congress website, perhaps until Tuesday.

A lot of hype in the news and press releases. Too bad they’re keeping it from us until they want us to see it.

UPDATE: eff.org has it here.

Plaintiff was a yoga instructor who was dating a San Diego County Deputy Sheriff. They weren’t married, but they lived together, had children together, and their finances were completely intermingled, with her a stay-at-home mom. After the relationship soured and they split, defendant had her arrested for credit card fraud because she still had one. There was probable cause for her arrest and the search of her house and an ADA signed off on the search warrant. After the arrest, the DA refused to prosecute. There was enough probable cause to avoid liability for false arrest and the search warrant, even though plaintiff’s expert testified in a deposition that it was “neglect of duty” not to have interviewed her before the arrest, not after. Plaintiff gets to go to the jury, however, on her excessive force claim that deputies arrested her for credit card fraud at gunpoint and were as intimidating as possible with personal animus, when she had their children. Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013)*:

Continue reading →

Politico.com: Report: Obama admin. fought to keep Rosen warrant secret by Dylan Byers:

Yet another development today in the case of James Rosen, the Fox News reporter who was monitored by the Justice Dept. after receiving classified information from a State Department security adviser.

According to The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, the Obama administration fought to keep the search warrant for Rosen’s private e-mail account secret on the grounds that they might need to monitor the account for a long period of time.

WPIX: Cops claim cell phones recording them are deadly weapons to seize them (video) (this video is from NJ, but it claims similar occurrences in FL, CA, and AR)

HuffPo: Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio Racially Profiled Latinos, Federal Judge Rules:

PHOENIX, May 24 (Reuters) – Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers in his crackdown on illegal immigration, a federal judge found on Friday, and ordered him to stop using race as a factor in law enforcement decisions.

The ruling against the Maricopa County sheriff came in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by Hispanic drivers that tested whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially profiling U.S. citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.

U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that the sheriff’s policies violated the drivers’ constitutional rights and ordered Arpaio’s office to cease using race or ancestry as a grounds to stop, detain or hold occupants of vehicles – some of them in crime sweeps dubbed “saturation patrols.”

A protective weapons search under Long is not limited like Gant where defendant not yet arrested yet handcuffed. His furtive movements, hiding his hands, loose bullets in the car, and saying he had no weapons when he had a knife was reasonable suspicion. Long permits this protective weapons search. State v. Santos, 64 A.3d 314 (R.I. 2013):

Continue reading →

A woman who flagged down the police to tell them of a potential crime is not an anonymous tipster. The officer saw her and could assess credibility. Therefore, she was considered more reliable. Durden v. State, 320 Ga. App. 218, 739 S.E.2d 676 (2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant exited I-80 at a ruse checkpoint and failed to signal, so he was stopped. The questions about drugs were de minimus. After the stop, reasonable suspicion developed to extend the stop based on his travel plans. The ultimate consent was voluntary. United States v. Valimont, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68322 (D. Neb. May 13, 2013):

Here, from the time of the initial stop to when Jacobsen asked for and received Valimont’s consent to search, approximately 18 minutes had passed. This was not unreasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., Bowman, 660 F.3d at 343-44. Any extension of the stop that resulted from Jacobsen’s questions or statements regarding drug activity was de minimis, and did not transform the stop into an unlawful seizure. United States v. Coleman, 700 F.3d 329, 335-36 (8th Cir. 2012).

Defendant’s showing up for a drug deal after being called by a snitch who rolled on him was PC. United States v. German, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67347 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2013).*

Defendant’s husband invited the officers onto their property and consented to a search. United States v. Bearden, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67487 (N.D. Ky. May 13, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped and his vehicle had the back seat removed and there were burlap fibers and marijuana stems and leaves where the seat was. He was handcuffed and refused to identify himself. He had no proof of ownership or control of the car. Bundles of marijuana were found nearby in the desert. Defendant did not show standing in the car; he put nothing on to attempt to show any link to the car. United States v. Buchanan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69107 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2013), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69108 (D. Ariz. March 7, 2013).

Defendant’s house was searched, and a gun was found and unloaded. It was reasonable for the police to control the gun to prevent its use. When defendant’s immigration status was learned, it was a felony for him to possess the firearm, and the seizure was lawful. United States v. Menjivar, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68661 (N.D. Ga. May 14, 2013).*

Defendant pled guilty and his PSR was prepared. Five days later he filed a motion to suppress. After his guilty plea was not timely. United States v. Montes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68497 (E.D. Tex. April 23, 2013).