Defendant was neither recipient nor sender of a Fed Ex package with oxycodone, so he lacked standing to challenge its search. There was also probable cause for search of the package under the search warrant. United States v. LeClair, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145498 (D. Maine December 19, 2011).*

In an IRS civil enforcement proceeding, the IRS agent’s affidavit is sufficient to satisfy the Powell requirements of subpoenas. Then, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove otherwise. United States v. Lund, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145921 (D. Ore. December 14, 2011).*

Defendant’s 2255 alluded to a defective search warrant but never elaborated on it, and it is treated as waived. United States v. Dodd, 828 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D. D.C. 2011).*

“It light of Kellerman’s ‘words and gestures,’ the officers reasonably believed that Kellerman had consented to their entry into the basement. See Almeida-Perez, 549 F.3d at 1171 (‘Our circuit precedent … has been more liberal about allowing police to form their impressions from context.’).” United States v. Derden, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74684 (D. Minn. April 16, 2012), adopted 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74218 (D. Minn. May 30, 2012).*

Defendant consented to the entry of her home by the police: “No, no, come in and look. No one is home.” She was arrested for resisting. United States v. Hernandez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74499 (W.D. N.C. April 16, 2012).*

A pre-Gant search in reliance on it was not subject to the exclusionary rule under Davis. Hinkle v. State, 86 So. 3d 441 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).*

Indiana’s DNA submission statute has a mistake exception, and defendant’s DNA was taken in another case because he was charged with a felony but pled to a misdemeanor. Ten months later, his DNA was connected to a murder, and it was not excluded under the mistake exception. Anderson v. State, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 38 (January 31, 2012).*

When defendant was approached by the police, he placed an object in his hand away from him, and the trial court found that it was abandoned. It was a magnetic key box which the officer had seen before as a place to hide drugs. State v. Lewis, 85 So. 3d 150 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012).*

Defendant was stopped for a ticketable offense, and the fact the officer might have had an ulterior motive for the stop didn’t matter. Additional questions during the stop did not require a Miranda warning. State v. Cortes, 84 So. 3d 733 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012).*

Defendant got his motion to suppress granted, and the state appealed getting the judgment reversed. Defendant then entered a plea and sought to appeal. The prior holding was law of the case and could not be appealed again. State v. Cox, 85 So. 3d 252 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012).*

The police went into a wooded area far from defendant’s house to look for a condom with possible DNA used in molesting a child. It was open fields. Dunn v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 751 (Ky. 2012).*

On rehearing after Davis, the prior decision applying Gant (United States v. Debruhl, 993 A.2d 571 (D.C. 2010)) is reversed. Davis is virtually identical. United States v. Debruhl, 38 A.3d 293 (D.C. App. 2012).*

The state had jurisdiction to try an offense against state law that occurred on fee land located on an Indian reservation, and state officers could execute a search warrant there. Nevada v. Hicks recognizes that states can prosecute state crimes on fee land. State v. Clark, 167 Wn. App. 667, 274 P.3d 1058 (2012)*:

¶14 This case is neither Baker nor Mathews. Unlike Colorado in the Baker case, Washington had jurisdiction over the crime it was prosecuting. Mathews is a little closer factually, but even if the quoted observation is treated as a rule of law, it has been superseded by Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353, 121 S. Ct. 2304, 150 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2001).

¶15 In Hicks, the court faced the question of whether a tribe could assert jurisdiction over state officers serving a state warrant on reservation trust land. The court answered the question in the negative, noting that states typically have jurisdiction over reservation lands unless a competing policy interest prohibited it. 533 U.S. at 361-65. The court specifically ruled that state officers could enter the reservation and serve a search warrant for a crime committed within the state’s jurisdiction. Id. at 363-64.

After issuing defendant a traffic ticket, the officer told him to get out of the car so he could explain it to him, and merely asking for consent was a de minimus extension of the stop. United States v. Davis, 460 Fed. Appx. 226 (4th Cir. 2011):

Officer Flatt’s following two questions, which asked whether any drugs or weapons were in the vehicle and for consent to search it, were unrelated to the underlying justification for the traffic stop, but they do not demonstrate a lack of diligence in prosecuting the stop so as to unlawfully extend its scope and duration beyond the circumstances justifying it. They neither constituted the bulk of the encounter between Officer Flatt and Davis nor signaled a definitive abandonment of the prosecution of the traffic stop to embark on another sustained course of investigation. They were the first and only unrelated questions asked until that point. All of the officers’ actions leading up to that exchange were tailored to prosecuting the traffic stop. The delay resulting from the exchange, which lasted a matter of seconds, was de minimis. Furthermore, after obtaining Davis’s consent, Officer Flatt returned to prosecuting the traffic stop while Officer Dollar searched the vehicle. Officer Flatt explained the citation to Davis and issued it to him. Because the officers diligently pursued the objective of the traffic stop, we hold that the brief exchange surrounding the request for consent did not extend the scope and duration of the stop in a manner that rendered the stop unconstitutional.

Thus, Davis’s consent was not the product of an illegal detention. As Davis’s consent was voluntary and provided during a lawful detention, it was valid and not tainted. When Davis provided his consent to search the vehicle, he necessarily consented to an extension of the traffic stop long enough for the officers to conduct the search. See United States v. Rivera, 570 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (8th Cir. 2009) (“When a motorist gives consent to search his vehicle, he necessarily consents to an extension of the traffic stop while the search is conducted ….”). His further detention during the search of his vehicle was, therefore, lawful. The consensual search yielded the firearm at issue. Because the firearm was recovered during a lawful detention and search, it was not tainted, and the district court correctly declined to suppress it.

[Note: This was far too long and detailed to be just unpublished. Watch for de minimus extension of stops in the cases–it’s dangerous. See this quote from Rivera, at 1014:

As soon as Rivera declined to execute the written consent form, Coleman promptly walked the dog around Rivera’s truck, where it alerted. This took less than two minutes. Our cases hold that such a brief detention for a dog sniff at the end of a traffic stop is de minimis and does not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Alexander, 448 F.3d 1014, 1016-17 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 649 (8th Cir.1999).

Plaintiff sued over his search in his criminal case, but the issue was appealed in the criminal case and thus precluded by the state court judgment, even if the appeal was pending under Wisconsin law. Wisconsin applies issue preclusion equitably, and there was no unfairness in applying it here. Kaprelian v. Bowers, 460 Fed. Appx. 597 (7th Cir. 2012).*

A hand-to-hand transaction on the street from a small plastic bag was probable cause to believe a drug deal occurred. United States v. Roland, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2899 (S.D. N.Y. January 10, 2012).*

Protective sweep during an immigration knock-and-talk was valid. United States v. Crisolis-Gonzalez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151037 (W.D. Mo. December 20, 2011).*

Officers responding to a noise complaint at a loud party and seemingly invited in to the living room by an unknown guest were not entitled to go to the bedrooms and open doors under the community caretaking function. State v. Kaltner, 210 N.J. 114, 41 A.3d 736 (2012), aff’g per curiam 420 N.J. Super. 524, 22 A.3d 77 (2011):

The panel explained that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement requires a case-by-case, fact-sensitive analysis. The relevant question focuses on the objective reasonableness of the police action under the circumstances, and requires that the court balance the nature of the intrusion necessary to handle the perceived threat to the community caretaking concern, the seriousness of the underlying harm to be averted, and the relative importance of the community caretaking concern. The panel concluded that the police action in this case was not constitutionally permitted. Although the officers’ entry into the dwelling was initially justified, their subsequent action in fanning out and conducting, in essence, a full-blown search of the home was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the entry in the first place, nor was it carried out in a manner consistent with the factors supporting the entry’s initial legitimacy. As explained by the motion judge, the objective of noise abatement could have been achieved well short of the officers’ full-scale search. For example, given the number of officers present and the fact that the offending noise emanated from the crowd itself, the officers could easily have dispersed the partiers.

After balancing the competing interests, including the important privacy interest in one’s home, the breadth and extent of the invasion of the entire premises, the limited nature of the community caretaking concern, and the relatively low threat posed in light of the available less-drastic options, the panel concluded that Officer Camacho was not lawfully in the hallway outside Kaltner’s bedroom when he viewed the evidence, and the plain-view doctrine did not excuse his entry into the bedroom and seizure of the drugs.

Racism.org: Racial Profiling as a Means of Thwarting the Alleged Latino Security Threat – III. Fourth Amendment Constitutional Foundations for Racial Profiling by Lupe S. Salinas & Fernando Colon-Navarro:

III. Fourth Amendment Constitutional Foundations for Racial Profiling

A. Search and Seizure Jurisprudence

Unfortunately and surprisingly, the bases for America’s racial and ethnic profiling problems can be traced to rulings issued by our Supreme Court. These rulings essentially and collectively state that an officer has a right to make a temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion or a traffic stop even if that stop was primarily for the basis of checking out possible criminal behavior for which the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

We begin first, however, with Terry v. Ohio, the landmark opinion, which created the reasonable suspicion exception to the probable cause standard of the Fourth Amendment. …

Fingerprint evidence as a result of an illegal seizure in an illegal re-entry case would not be suppressed. United States v. Lopez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83426 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2012):

No such bright line exists in published case law explicitly preventing the suppression of fingerprint evidence gathered as part of an illegal seizure and arrest in the illegal re-entry context. However, in Roque-Villanueva, the Fifth Circuit held that, “[e]ven if the [d]efendant was illegally stopped, neither his identity nor his INS file [is] suppressible.” 175 F.3d 345, 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added); Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 450 (quoting the holding in Roque-Villanueva). In a number of unpublished Fifth Circuit opinions, panels have acknowledged that “identity” includes fingerprint evidence by, for example, concluding that “even if there was a Fourth Amendment violation, this [circuit] has held that evidence of identity, such as one’s fingerprints and A-file, is not suppressible.” United States v. Cervantes-Malagon, 2012 WL 13769, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2012) …

The Court is persuaded by the reasoning in the foregoing authorities that, in the context of an illegal re-entry prosecution, even fingerprint evidence gathered following a Fourth Amendment violation is not subject to suppression when that evidence is used merely to establish a defendant’s identity. …

Police were investigating a serial rapist who struck on rainy nights. An officer saw a Jeep parked in a likely neighborhood because of a report of a man in a ski mask, and he felt the hood which was warm. He noted the license number finding it didn’t stay in the neighborhood, looked through the windows, and drove off. An hour later he saw the vehicle moving and stopped it, asking the driver about what he was doing in the neighborhood, and he noted the answer. He asked for consent which was denied, and he let the driver go. The next day, after a rape was reported, officers followed up on the story obtained from the stop and found it false. The stop was with reasonable suspicion. State v. Burdick, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 396 (June 13, 2012):

We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Hamm had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant’s Jeep. At the time of the stop, “The Wooded Rapist” was at large in the community. “The Wooded Rapist” had committed his rapes on rainy evenings in the Brentwood area. On the night of April 27, 2008, which was rainy, Officer Hamm responded to a call about a man wearing a ski mask and dark clothing in the area of Meadow Lake and Arnold Road. While patrolling that area, looking for something out of place, he noticed a gray Jeep parked on the side of the road. Upon approaching the vehicle, he found the hood of the vehicle warm. He ran the vehicle’s tags and determined that it was registered to the Defendant, whose listed address was not in the subdivision. The officer left and returned an hour later, passing the Defendant driving the Jeep away from the Meadow Lake area. Officer Hamm initiated an investigatory traffic stop to identify the driver of the Jeep and determine if he was related to the call about the man in the ski mask. We conclude Officer Hamm had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the vehicle, or its occupant, were subject to seizure for violation of the law.

We further conclude that Officer Hamm’s stop of the Defendant did not exceed the proper parameters. The stop lasted between three and five minutes. The officer asked the Defendant if he had seen anything suspicious, and the Defendant responded negatively. The officer filled out a field interview card, and the Defendant offered the officer his phone number. The officer asked the Defendant why he was in the neighborhood, and the Defendant responded that he was there to visit a friend.

Does this case suggest a sliding scale of reasonable suspicion where the more serious the crime the lesser reasonable suspicion is required? If so, should that be permissible? Catching a serial rapist is certainly among the weightiest of government and public interests, as was preventing the armed robbery in Terry. Remember, that case also involved a frisk, not just a stop. Can it be said that comparing this case to a drug case where reasonable suspicion is the excuse for a stop, maybe this wouldn’t be reasonable suspicion for a stop? Well, you can’t compare this case to a drug case: Serial rapist on the loose striking on rainy nights; man with a ski mask seen in the neighborhood; a vehicle not belonging in the neighborhood is seen parked there, and it hadn’t been there long; stopping it to ask if the driver had seen anything suspicious, like the man in the ski mask, and asking for identification was not unreasonable. If defendant had been taken in on that, the discussion would be different. But, at the time of the stop, no rape had yet been reported, and he was let go in 3-5 minutes, getting only a name and why he was there. This was just good police work that fully respected the detainee’s rights. It wasn’t a stop on a pure hunch–it was because this car didn’t come back as belonging in the neighborhood, and there was a report of a prowler.

Reason.com: Unwarranted Intrusion / When it comes to wiretaps, the federal government’s official policy is: “Trust us!” by J.D. Tuccille:

On June 11, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) temporarily blocked the renewal of legislation that allows the U.S. government to listen in, without a warrant, on Americans’ conversations, so long as they’re chatting with overseas chums who are the official targets of the eavesdropping. In doing so, Wyden not only stood against a bipartisan cabal of snoopy legislative colleagues, but also against the White House, which wants the extension passed and is vigorously battling against constitutional challenges to such electronic eavesdropping. That may come as a bit of a surprise to anybody who remembers then-presidential candidate Barack Obama promising to end the use of warrantless wiretaps that were so popular under the George W. Bush administration.

Defendant was charged with internet stalking and identity theft for using a false name, and he raised a host of issues over the search warrants, all of which failed. The government did not violate curtilage by pulling into defendant’s driveway to view his house. The defendant lacks standing for the government’s viewing his neighbor’s wifi signal that defendant was accused of hacking. Defendant’s Franks issues are each an overstatement of the situation, and, even so, excluding what he complains of still leaves probable cause. “Most of the issues raised by the defendant are legitimate jury issues for the jury to consider in assessing whether or not the offender is guilty of the crime charged, but they do not meet the Franks standard for an evidentiary hearing on this warrant application.” None of the Franks challenges were material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Sayer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82729 (D. Me. June 13, 2012).*

Moral here: Taking the court at face value, none of these Franks challenges were even close. Do you have the time to make a massive Franks challenge that’s likely going to fail? Just because the client can pay enough fee to pursue it doesn’t mean that you should. Put that time and energy into defending at trial. After all these years, my view of Franks has evolved into a rule of reason: Unless it just screams lie or negligent omission, you lose, so use it to attack the officer’s credibility at trial, which is just what this court suggests, reading between the lines. But, even if it doesn’t undermine the officer as an exaggeration, does it create a reasonable doubt?

Remember my Rule 1 of the Fourth Amendment: “There are no technicalities.” There used to be, but not anymore. Not in the last 20+ years.

The informant’s false statement, comparing grand jury testimony with the affidavit for the search warrant, is not chargeable to the officer under Franks, so the motion is denied. United States v. Neal, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81849 (E.D. Tenn. April 13, 2012).

A game warden received a call about unlawfully taking a deer by three people in a “whitish old Subaru car,” and that justified the stop when it was seen. United States v. Wilks, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82165 (D. Mont. June 12, 2012).*

The USMJ’s findings of voluntary consent is adopted by the USDJ. There is no testimony except that the consent was voluntary. United States v. Talamante-Rodriguez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82009 (D. Ariz. June 12, 2012).*

The defense failed to show guest standing at the hearing, and the court is left with speculation on critical facts. United States v. Wix, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81871 (W.D. Ky. June 13, 2012)*:

In the context of guests in a residence, the Sixth Circuit has broadly interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s protections. Overnight guests staying in a residence’s common area have standing to challenge a police intrusion and search. See United States v. Pollard, 215 F.3d 643, 647 (6th Cir. 2000) (privacy interest existed for occasional overnight guest who was allowed to stay in residence alone and kept personal belongs in closet). Non-overnight guests have also been permitted to challenge the search of personal items kept in a third-party’s residence. United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279, 283 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838, 844 (6th Cir. 2005)). Suffice it to say, the appeals court has “generously” interpreted the reach of the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to temporary residents of a dwelling. See id.

Nevertheless, this generosity does not arise without some measure of proof by a defendant. Whether an informal sleeping arrangement creates a reasonable expectation of privacy naturally begets a fact-dominated inquiry for a court. Criminal defendants hoping to establish Fourth Amendment standing offer a variety of evidence to show a reasonable expectation of privacy. Factors that courts have considered include how often the defendant stayed in the dwelling, e.g., United States v. Love, 70 F.3d 116, at *4 [published in full-text format at 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 35493] (6th Cir. 1995) (table) (defendant did not have expectation of privacy in mother’s house as he was not an overnight guest and had moved out six months before the search), whether the defendant maintained personal belongings in the residence, e.g., United States v. Robertson, 297 F. App’x 722, 726 (10th Cir. 2008) (defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy when hotel room was not registered in his name and “no personal items indicating an overnight stay were present”), whether the defendant provided any sort of remuneration for the privilege of staying there, e.g., United States v. McRae, 156 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 1998) (no expectation of privacy where defendant was squatting in building and did not pay rent to the owners of the structure), or whether the defendant could come and go freely, e.g., United States v. Davis, 932 F.2d 752, 756-57 (9th Cir. 1991) (where defendant had key to apartment, could come and go freely, and stored items in an apartment, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy).

Too many questions exist to accurately measure Defendants’ legitimate expectation of privacy in the mobile home. How often did Defendants spend the night in the mobile home and on the Property? The Court cannot possibly measure with any accuracy the subjective statement of Dozier that Wix and she stayed there “a lot.” When was the last time Dozier and Wix were guests in the mobile home? Dozier admitted during her testimony that she did not spend the previous night in the trailer and the Court does not have additional information on the subject. Did Defendants have permission to stay there from the owner, Clifford Wix? It may be safe to assume so, but no direct evidence on this point was presented during either hearing. Were there any personal belongings of Defendants in the mobile home? Dozier did not offer any proof on this matter and Wix’s silence is impossible to measure. Were Defendants providing Clifford Wix some sort of compensation to stay in the mobile home? Again, there is a deficiency in the record on this issue. Did Defendants have a key to mobile home and could they come and go without first obtaining permission from Clifford Wix? No relevant information was offered in this regard. The only verifiable information about which the Court can be sure is Defendants did not own the mobile home and they did not stay there the night before the police raided the Property. 1 HR, DN 41 p. 9-10.

Defendants undoubtedly possessed some connection to the mobile home. However, “the act of staying overnight at a third party residence does not automatically entitle a defendant to the protections of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Hunt, No. 2:07-CR-284-WKW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111768, 2008 WL 4080770, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 3, 2008). The evidence Defendants submitted to the Court falls short of establishing an expectation of privacy in the mobile home. For the Court to find otherwise would be to apply guesswork and conjecture to the present record. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to suppress is improper.

Standing is the defense burden, and they simply failed to adequately pursue it, maybe believing labeling the defendants as “guests” was enough to carry them through the hearing, but it’s not.

The District of Kansas puts the burden on the defendant to prove that the inventory of his car was unlawful, when it was allegedly only parked, after his stop, more than 12″ from the curb. No mention that the officer could not have pulled it over closer and left it. United States v. Calvin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83037 (D. Kan. June 15, 2012).* Shifting the burden:

The burden is on defendant to prove that the challenged search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1124 (10th Cir. 2011). …

… Further, defendant conceded that department towing policy required Officer Eckel to complete a full inventory search of the vehicle, including the glove compartment. Defendant has not provided any basis to suppress the evidence that resulted from the inventory search of his vehicle.

Maybe the defendant should have lost on the merits, but he at least could have had the correct burden of proof applied. If the court dealt with the merits appropriately, the analysis would be completely different. Really lame.

This was decided by a USDJ, not a Magistrate Judge, and it’s just completely wrong in its approach.

Defendant was suspected of running a reselling fraud on eBay, and a search warrant was obtained for all his records pertaining to interstate transportation of stolen property. The search warrant was sufficiently particular and not overbroad. United States v. Kuc, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82398 (D. Mass. June 14, 2012):

1. The First Prong: Evidence of Other Contraband

The degree to which evidence of contraband is believed to be on the premises is largely connected to the pervasiveness of the illegal activity being investigated. …

Pervasiveness for purposes of the first prong is not limited to large organizations or entities. United States v. Falon, 959 F.2d 1143, 1148 (1st Cir. 1992). Thus, in United States v. Morris, the First Circuit found that two illegal drug transactions at the same residential address gave the magistrate judge “sufficient evidence to believe that a large collection of similar contraband would be present in the premises that were to be searched pursuant to the warrant.” 977 F.2d at 681.

2. The Second Prong: Distinguishing Contraband

As to the second prong, the principle that emerges from the First Circuit’s caselaw is that a warrant is insufficiently particular if the suspected crime being investigated and leading to the warrant application was substantially narrower than the scope of the warrant that ultimately issued. For example, the First Circuit held in United States v. Roche that where an affidavit in support of the warrant application made clear that only motor vehicle insurance fraud was being investigated, a warrant that authorized the seizure of documents pertaining to all types of insurance was overbroad because it could have been more narrowly tailored to only authorize the seizure of documents pertaining to motor vehicle insurance. 614 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir. 1980). In other words, where there is “information available to the agents which could have served to narrow the scope of the warrant and protect the defendant[‘s] personal rights” but the information is either withheld from the magistrate or not included in the warrant, “the warrant [is] inadequate.” Klein, 565 F.2d at 190.

But where the warrant’s list of items to be seized is tailored to the specific crime being investigated, it will survive an overbreadth challenge under the second prong. For example, the First Circuit upheld a warrant against a particularity challenge where it provided for the seizure of all documents relating to a list of seventeen individuals that constituted evidence of the specific suspected crime of conspiring to defraud the Social Security Administration. United States v. Bithoney, 631 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1980).

Even a broad search warrant authorizing the seizure of all of a business’s records may be sufficiently particular if the fraud alleged is pervasive such that most, if not all, of the business is suspected of being linked to a mail and wire fraud scheme. This is intimately connected to the scope of the fraud which factors heavily into the first prong analysis. See Brien, 617 F.2d at 306-08. In Brien, as noted above, affidavits submitted with the warrant application demonstrated that the fraud in the business was pervasive. The First Circuit held that “where there … exists a pervasive scheme to defraud, all the business records of an enterprise may be seized, if they are, as here, accurately described so that the executing officers have no need to exercise their own judgment as to what should be seized.” Id. at 309 (emphasis added).

Officers responding to an anonymous shots fired call entered defendant’s backyard and found him on his deck. The search of his bag violated the Fourth Amendment and Tennessee Constitution because the officers entered the curtilage without exigent circumstances. State v. Anderson, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 385 (June 12, 2012):

Anderson’s deck was plainly within the curtilage of his home for the purposes of both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7. Considering the Fourth Amendment test, the deck was immediately attached to the house, and a back door opened to it. Although the area was not included within an enclosure, it was largely surrounded by trees. A grill was on the deck, indicating that Anderson used the area for cooking. The many toys indicate that young children used the area to play. Roberson’s testimony indicates that Anderson used the area to relax and entertain guests. Additionally, the area was behind the house and not visible to passers-by on the road. All these factors support the conclusion that the deck was intimately tied to the home, and the deck, therefore, is protected under the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp., 461 F.3d 646, 652 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding rear deck to be protected curtilage under similar facts). Furthermore, this same evidence, particularly the nature of the activities that occurred on the deck, demonstrates that the deck was an area to which the activity of home life extended. Consequently, Anderson also enjoyed the protection of article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution while on his deck. Because the deputies intruded on this constitutionally protected area without a warrant, they violated the mandates of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

Atlantic.com: An Eye Without an ‘I’: Justice and the Rise of Automated Surveillance by Ross Andersen:

Over the past decade, video surveillance has exploded. In many cities, we might as well have drones hovering overhead, given how closely we’re being watched, perpetually, by the thousands of cameras perched on buildings. So far, people’s inability to watch the millions of hours of video had limited its uses. But video is data and computers are being set to work mining that information on behalf of governments and anyone else who can afford the software. And this kind of automated surveillance is only going to get more sophisticated as a result of new technologies like iris scanners and gait analysis.

Yet little thought has been given to the ethics of perpetually recording vast swaths of the world. What, exactly, are we getting ourselves into?

Guest standing here is speculative without a better showing by the defense. United States v. Wix, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81871 (W.D. Ky. June 13, 2012)*:

Too many questions exist to accurately measure Defendants’ legitimate expectation of privacy in the mobile home. How often did Defendants spend the night in the mobile home and on the Property? The Court cannot possibly measure with any accuracy the subjective statement of Dozier that Wix and she stayed there “a lot.” When was the last time Dozier and Wix were guests in the mobile home? Dozier admitted during her testimony that she did not spend the previous night in the trailer and the Court does not have additional information on the subject. Did Defendants have permission to stay there from the owner, Clifford Wix? It may be safe to assume so, but no direct evidence on this point was presented during either hearing. Were there any personal belongings of Defendants in the mobile home? Dozier did not offer any proof on this matter and Wix’s silence is impossible to measure. Were Defendants providing Clifford Wix some sort of compensation to stay in the mobile home? Again, there is a deficiency in the record on this issue. Did Defendants have a key to mobile home and could they come and go without first obtaining permission from Clifford Wix? No relevant information was offered in this regard. The only verifiable information about which the Court can be sure is Defendants did not own the mobile home and they did not stay there the night before the police raided the Property. 1 HR, DN 41 p. 9-10.