City rental property license ordinance required an inspection from the city or a licensed private inspector or architect, and it did not violate Fourth Amendment rights because there was no criminal penalty for refusing other than denying a license. Marcavage v. Borough of Lansdowne, 493 Fed. Appx. 301 (3d Cir. 012).*

Defendant consented to a search of his car, and there was no need to unhandcuff him after a toy gun was found before asking for consent. United States v. Correa, 881 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D. R.I. 2012).*

The officer’s waiting for backup before searching defendant was not proof that the officer was not credible that he feared a gun. He didn’t act immediately, but that didn’t undermine credibility. United States v. Velazquez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111430 (D. Utah August 3, 2012).*

Warrantless search of suitcase in a car where the car was searched by consent was invalid. The dog sniffed the bag after the heroin was found. The fact they might have done it lawfully another way doesn’t make this search legal. United States v. Carrion-Soto, 493 Fed. Appx. 340 (3d Cir. 2012):

Continue reading →

The fact defendant was involved in a drug deal was reasonable suspicion for a patdown for weapons because of the likelihood a drug dealer will be armed, in the officer’s experience. United States v. Collins, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134899 (S.D. Ga. August 30, 2012).*

Defendant contended that he was not subjected to a patdown before the officer reached into his pocket retrieving ammunition, but the video did not contradict the officer’s testimony, so the finding of the district court is affirmed. United States v. Wiley, 493 Fed. Appx. 481 (5th Cir. 2012).*

Towing bankruptcy debtor’s car by a private towing company did not involve the Fourth Amendment. In re Guancione, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135613 (N.D. Cal. September 21, 2012).*

The search of defendant’s backpack was because the officer was “curious” because of its weight and not because of any concern about it. Therefore, the search of the backpack was not justified under the community caretaking exception. “The record lacks evidence that gives rise to an objectively reasonable belief that Officer Lancaster’s searching appellant’s backpack was necessary to protect the backpack or its contents from theft or damage; to protect Deputy Hayes or Officer Lancaster from appellant’s claims of stolen property; or to protect the police or public from danger.” Knight v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 297, 734 S.E.2d 716 (2012).

Defendant’s search incident was justified because officers had information that he was armed, and he fled from the police in the hallway of an apartment building under circumstances that justifies the inference that he had hidden evidence. State v. Sanders, 2013 WI App 4, 345 Wis. 2d 754, 826 N.W.2d 394 (2012).*

Defendant was driving 13 mph below the speed limit in the left lane, but there was nothing that showed why, like that cars in front of him may be going too slow. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in crediting this finding. Delafuente v. State, 389 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) 2012).*

There was no justification for a warrantless entry into defendant’s house after a knock-and-talk. While the officers were found credible on the question of whether a document entitled “consent to search” was signed, they omitted the critical facts of alleged exigency from their reports, and that was important. They needed a warrant and elected to proceed without one. United States v. Whisenton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52667 (E.D. Mo. March 8, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

Defendant was charged with vehicle manslaughter under federal law. His blood and urine were tested at a hospital based on the hospital’s consent form. There’s nothing that indicates that the consent was not voluntary. United States v. Johnson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52078 (D. Minn. March 7, 2013).* (The blood and urine were sought by the police, so this is not a private search issue.)

“While it is a close call, considering the factors in combination, I FIND Officer Duggan had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot to warrant a brief investigation by deploying the readily-available [drug dog] Red.” United States v. Winters, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52374 (E.D. Tenn. January 22, 2013).*

The encounter was consensual, not requiring reasonable suspicion, and reasonable suspicion developed during the encounter. United States v. Senator, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52689 (D. Ore. April 11, 2013).*

The driver’s nervousness and not inconsistent versions of travel plans was reasonable suspicion for getting the drug dog out. United States v. Winters, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52374 (E.D. Tenn. January 22, 2013).*

wired.com: Secrets of FBI Smartphone Surveillance Tool Revealed in Court Fight by Kim Zetter:

Continue reading →

It was clearly established law that officers could not use gratuitous violence against a mentally unstable unarmed arrestee. Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7094, 2013 FED App. 0101P (6th Cir. April 9, 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant’s allegedly being delusional did not prevent him from being able to grant effective consent. He seemed perfectly fine when he was talking to the officers about his child pornography collection which he then consented to a search of. United States v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51841 (M.D. Tenn. April 10, 2013):

Continue reading →

Officers entered a motel room with probable cause and exigent circumstances that a 16 year old girl was inside working as a prostitute for defendant. It was the ongoing crime of sexual abuse and prostitution of a child. Defendant, her alleged pimp, wasn’t there. Closed bags were found. The entry was legal, but the contents of the bags were not in plain view. Also, the fact it took 25 minutes for them to leave with the girl didn’t make it unreasonable. The motion to suppress is denied as to the entry and observations, but granted as to the closed bags defendant left in the room. “Defendant has not cited and the Court has not found any case requiring officers to make an instantaneous retreat from premises they entered based on exigent circumstances. Here the Court concludes the officers were still legally present in the room when they observed the bags in plain view during the period in which they were still dealing with N.B.” United States v. Wilmer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52350 (D. Ore. April 11, 2013).*

Note: A really interesting question not discussed at all is standing. Defendant rented the room for the girl to work as a prostitute, and he wasn’t there when the search went down. The court assumed defendant had standing as the renter of the room, and the government apparently never raised it. All may believe that defendant’s bags in the room was standing enough. Some courts would not be so solicitous.

The smell of marijuana was an exigent circumstance for an entry coupled with the defendant’s knowledge the officers smelled it. United States v. Staley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50901 (M.D. Ala. March 15, 2013).*

Reasonable suspicion was present to extend the stop to get a drug dog to the scene. Defendant’s refusal to consent (albeit vague and ambiguous and sometimes a partial consent), is not considered at all, and the police couldn’t. United States v. Williams, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50782 (M.D. N.C. April 9, 2013).*

Any failure to properly announce before entry is not a ground to suppress under Michigan v. Hudson. The search of defendant’s trash at the curb was reasonable. Any failure to comply with the inventory requirement (something not really proved) would not be a constitutional error without prejudice to the accused, and there can’t be any. United States v. Barker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50376 (D. Minn. March 25, 2013).*

Protective sweep justified as a virtual “health and welfare argument.” There was a prior home invasion, and people were unaccounted for. United States v. Shephard, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51427 (E.D. Ky. March 15, 2013):

Continue reading →

ProPublica: No Warrant, No Problem: How The Government Can Still Get Your Digital Data by Theodoric Meyer and Peter Maass:

The U.S. government isn’t allowed to wiretap American citizens without a warrant from a judge. But there are plenty of legal ways for law enforcement, from the local sheriff to the FBI to the Internal Revenue Service, to snoop on the digital trails you create every day. Authorities can often obtain your emails and texts by going to Google or AT&T with a simple subpoena. Usually you won’t even be notified.

Two senators introduced legislation last month to update privacy protection for emails, but the bill remains in committee. Meantime, here’s how law enforcement can track you without a warrant now: …

The Hill: IRS: We can read emails without warrant by Brendan Sasso.

The IRS believes that it can ignore United States v. Warshak outside the Sixth Circuit, even though every district court to consider the issue since Warshak has followed it.

Back to blog

Defendant got a Franks hearing, and he did not prevail. “Consequently, the Court finds no evidence that the transcript or the affidavit contained statements that were deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.” Even if the challenged information were excised, there still is probable cause. United States v. Serrano, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50996 (E.D. N.Y. April 8, 2013).*

“In this case, the record establishes that Agent Jackson entered the apartment only after the facts and circumstances would have led a reasonable person to conclude that the apartment contained contraband or evidence that was imminently likely to be destroyed. Therefore, his entry into the apartment was objectively justified. Agent Jackson’s subjective expectation that a search would be fruitful has no bearing on the inquiry. See King, 131 S. Ct. at 1859 …” United States v. Staley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50901 (M.D. Ala. March 15, 2013).*

Where there was no binding circuit precedent, pre-Jones placement of a GPS could not be protected by Davis. There were, however, court orders for cell phone tracking. The court finds that these orders were not sufficient to provide an independent source for the detailed tracking information the GPS provided. United States v. German, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50462 (D. Md. April 8, 2013):

The Government has not met its burden of proving that the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines apply. As to the independent source doctrine, the Government has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that they obtained the same surveillance evidence through use of authorized cell phone tracking. As to the inevitable discovery doctrine, the Court is not persuaded that law enforcement “inevitably” would have obtained the same evidence, particularly given the duration and scope of the surveillance and the officers’ necessarily limited resources.

911 shots fired call coupled with a reasonable belief the shooter went into the house justified a hot pursuit into the house. Opening a basement door and finding the gun was not unreasonable. United States v. Barclay, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50914 (N.D. Ohio April 9, 2013).*

Defendant cannot show standing merely by relying on the government’s theory of the case. Defendant failed to show standing by some clothes in the closet that the government thought were his. The place was rented by him but subrented to somebody else. United States v. Henry, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50324 (N.D. Ga. January 30, 2013):

Continue reading →

Defendant’s six arguments to suppress all rejected. Since the search warrant was issued by a state court judge and executed by state officers it did not need to comply with Rule 41, and the federal knock-and-announce statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109, did not apply. There was probable cause, and five day old information was not stale. United States v. Dodson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49966 (N.D. Ind. April 4, 2013).*

The encounter started as a “motorist assist” and reasonable suspicion developed. “At his initial contact with Defendants, Trooper Schmiedt became suspicious. To begin, it was obvious to Trooper Schmiedt that Defendants wanted him gone. This was the first time that Trooper Schmiedt had initiated a motorist assist and the motorist was not open to assistance.” United States v. Salgado, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48696 (D. S.D. April 1, 2013).*

Trash left at the curb was treated as abandoned and is seizable. United States v. Barker, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50376 (D. Minn. March 25, 2013).*

New Law Review Article: Wayne A. Logan, Dirty Silver Platters, 99 Iowa L. Rev. __ (2013). Abstract from SSRN:

This article addresses a longstanding concern in American criminal justice: the risk that law enforcement agents of different governments will work together to evade a legal limit imposed by one of the governments. In the past, with the U.S. Supreme Court in the lead, courts were prone to closely scrutinize intergovernmental investigative efforts, on vigilant guard against what the Court called improper “working arrangements.” Judicial vigilance, however, has long since waned, a problematic development assuming added significance over time as investigations have become increasingly multijurisdictional and technologically sophisticated in nature.

Dirty Silver Platters offers the first comprehensive examination of this phenomenon and its many negative consequences, highlighting the need for more exacting judicial scrutiny of intergovernmental investigations. Without such scrutiny, modern silver platter doctrine, which allows admission of evidence illegally secured by non-forum agents found to be acting independently of agents of the forum court, is permitted to reign supreme. The article therefore seeks to pick up where mid-twentieth century courts left off, providing a reinvigorated framework to smoke out forum government agent involvement in investigations and condemn the legal evasion that it allows. In doing so, the article shines a spotlight on a critically important matter, implicating core rule of law and governmental transparency values, which will assume ever-greater importance in coming years as governments accelerate their combined investigative efforts in the battle against crime and domestic terrorism.

NTImes Editorial: When ICE Ran Amok:

In a series of raids in suburban New York in 2006 and 2007, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement burst into private homes in the dead of night, without warrants, looking for undocumented immigrants, often in the wrong houses. They pounded on doors, terrorized innocent residents, ineptly drew guns on police officers who were supposed to be their partners, and found hardly any of the gang members they were hunting. It was a stunning display of aggression and incompetence.