A friend came to defendant’s house and he told her to call 911 because he had just killed his wife. She did, and the police arrived, and he let them in to the house. While there is no general crime scene exception to the Fourth Amendment under Flippo, the entry of the first responders and then others were by consent or a mere extension of the first for an observation. No evidence was taken as to the latter. State v. Beach, 2012 Ohio 2338, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2068 (6th Dist. May 25, 2012).

Defendant was with a group of people on the street, and a police car crossed traffic to pull up in front of them. They were not seized, even by the officer “asking” them to remove their hoods. United States v. Moede, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73219 (E.D. Wis. May 25, 2012).*

Defendant is a Russian formerly living in Cyprus who was indicted in Brooklyn for international credit card fraud. When he was arrested in Cyprus, his laptop was seized and searched. He was extradited and pled guilty here. His lawyer was not ineffective for not challenging the search of the computer in Cyprus where the U.S. was not at all involved, and he consented to parts of it. Defendant also falls short on a “shocking the conscience” due process claim. United States v. Vega, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73329 (E.D. N.Y. May 24, 2012).*

Backyard of mobile home with a gravel driveway that ended at front yard and brush all around that blocked view from road was curtilage. Going to the backyard by following the garden hose violated the curtilage for a knock-and-talk. State v. Draper, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 346 (May 24, 2012)*:

The “knock and talk” procedure does not justify Deputy Hamby’s incursion into the curtilage of the Defendants’ home. Deputy Hamby was very clear in his testimony at the suppression hearing that he did not approach the Defendants’ front door and made no attempt to contact them at the front door. Deputy Hamby could not recall if any of the water company employees attempted to contact the Defendants at their front door. Deputy Hamby also could not recall whether there were any other cars in the driveway when he arrived. Deputy Hamby testified that he bypassed the front door and simply followed the water hose into the Defendants’ backyard. As such, Deputy Hamby left the area where the public was impliedly invited, exceeded the scope of the implied invitation, and intruded upon a constitutionally protected area. Furthermore, Deputy Hamby was aware that the Defendants had posted “no trespassing” signs on their property, effectively revoking the implied invitation of the front door. Accordingly, we conclude that Deputy Hamby made no attempt to institute a “knock and talk” procedure and that the procedure provides no justification for his warrantless entry into the Defendants’ backyard.

An illegal search of video enabled the state to find other witnesses. While the search was bad, the witness was not barred under Ceccolini. State v. Bailey, 2012 ME 55, 41 A.3d 535 (2012):

[*P20] In Ceccolini the Supreme Court addressed the factors that dictate whether the exclusionary rule should apply to live-witness testimony. The factors are (1) the amount of free will exercised by the witness; (2) whether the initial illegality that led to the discovery of the witness was used to compel the witness to testify, or if the witness testifies as a product of “detached reflection and a desire to be cooperative”; (3) whether the testimony is related to the purpose of the original illegal search, keeping in mind that the exclusion would forever prevent the witness from testifying; (4) the amount of time that elapsed between the initial illegality and the initial contact with the witness, and between the initial contact with the witness and the testimony at trial; (5) whether the witness was known to the police officers prior to the illegal conduct; and (6) whether applying the exclusionary rule would have a future deterrent effect on police conduct. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. at 276-80.

[*P21] Although the Court in Ceccolini declined to adopt a per se rule that live-witness testimony should never be excluded, it acknowledged that witness testimony must be evaluated differently from physical evidence. Id. at 274-76 (“Witnesses are not like guns or documents which remain hidden from view until one turns over a sofa or opens a filing cabinet.”). The Court instructed that the decision “cannot be decided on the basis of causation in the logical sense alone.” Id. at 274. Instead, the Court indicated that a closer link between the illegality and the witness’s testimony is required to exclude the testimony than with nontestimonial evidence because “the cost of excluding live-witness testimony often will be greater.” Id. at 278.

[*P22] In a case factually similar to this one, the police received information about the sexual abuse of minors at a school. United States v. Wipf, 397 F.3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2005). The police obtained a search warrant and seized videotapes, among other evidence, from Wipf’s home and used the videotapes to identify a previously unknown victim. Id. at 681. The victim’s parents and a psychologist persuaded him to talk about the past abuse, partially by revealing the existence of the videotapes. Id. at 681, 684. The trial court granted Wipf’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his house, but allowed the victim to testify. Id. at 681-83. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the admission of the victim’s testimony after applying the Ceccolini factors, specifically finding that the victim testified willingly; the illegally-seized videotapes were used indirectly to convince the victim to talk; the police never confronted the victim with the existence of the videotapes; the videotapes were never shown to the victim; about nine days elapsed between the illegal search and the first contact with the victim, and nine months elapsed before the victim testified at trial; and the purpose of the search was not to identify additional victims, but rather to corroborate the information originally received. Id. at 684-85.

[*P23] As the trial court found, application of the Ceccolini factors to this case weigh in favor of admitting the live-witness testimony. In its decision, the court found that the witnesses testified of their own free will, that there was a possibility that the witnesses could come forward in the future, and that the purpose of Detective Beaulieu’s search was not to identify the then unknown victims. These findings support the court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress the live-witness testimony. Additionally, the facts that the testimony was not directly related to the purpose of the original search, that the victims testified in court over two years after they were first identified, and that the victims would otherwise be forever prevented from testifying against Bailey also weigh in favor of admitting the testimony.

There aren’t many cases dealing with the Ceccolini rule, so every one of them is important.

Defendant’s stop for swerving was valid, and she consented to a search of the car producing over 1.9 kg of heroin. Her motion to suppress is denied without a hearing for failure to provide a factual dispute. United States v. Santiago, 826 F. Supp. 2d 337 (D. Mass. 2011)*:

In this case, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Ortiz’s motion to suppress contains a plethora of search and seizure law, but only a scintilla applicable to the instant case. Moreover, her affidavit in support of her motion to suppress is full of high-sounding legal conclusions, such as “the stop of my motor vehicle was made without reasonable suspicion or probable cause” and “I was questioned in a custodial setting,” but is devoid of any detailed factual basis to support those conclusions. Ortiz does allege that she “did not voluntarily consent to [a] search of my vehicle,” but, consistent with the rest of her affidavit, she fails to submit a credible alternative narrative of events and makes no offer of proof that might support her allegation.

The vehicle was stopped for not being registered, and the inventory thereafter was valid because it couldn’t be driven away. United States v. Glover, 441 Fed. Appx. 748 (11th Cir. 2011).*

Blue lights to stop a car is a seizure, here on a mere hunch and not with reasonable suspicion, and the stop is suppressed. State v. Moats, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 817 (November 8, 2011):

Under the authority of [State v. Williams, 185 S.W.3d 311 (Tenn. 2006)], it is clear that Sergeant Bige seized the defendant the moment she activated her emergency lights because the use of the lights was a show of authority and a reasonable citizen would not have felt free to leave. See id. at 317. She was not performing a community caretaking function because, as she testified, there was no indication that the defendant needed assistance nor was there any other evidence that she needed to activate the lights for safety reasons. Additionally, Sergeant Bige had no reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. She testified that she thought it was strange that a truck was parked in the grocery store parking lot near 2:00 a.m. with its lights on. Essentially, she had an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch,” which does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. Without reasonable suspicion, her seizure of the defendant violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings and reverse the trial court’s determination that the officer did not seize the defendant without reasonable suspicion when she activated her emergency lights.

Defendant’s car was stopped for a traffic offense, and, because of excessive tinting, the officer could not see into the back seat. A gun was in plain view sticking out from under the seat, and defendant admitted there was another gun in the car. The entry into the car was valid for officer safety. “The Court believes this course of action to be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Whether a search is reasonable ‘is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, at 118-19, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (internal quotation marks omitted).” United States v. Vicente-Lucas, 826 F. Supp. 2d 422 (D. P.R. 2011).*

Defendant consented to a search of a case for stolen items and drugs. That did not include a search of a memory card found. United States v. Brooks, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141869 (N.D. Ind. December 9, 2011):

The court finds that Mr. Brooks consented to the search of the Sentry case while he was in custody in May 2010. The scope of that consent was limited to the objects of the search: stolen items and items related to drugs. The December 2011 search of the contents of the memory card exceeded the scope of the consent search, and wasn’t done pursuant to a warrant or another exception to the warrant requirement. The contents of the memory card are not admissible at Mr. Brooks’s trial.

The record [without saying what it says] supports the finding of consent. United States v. Escue, 457 Fed. Appx. 295 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

Plaintiff’s arrest was with arguable probable cause that plaintiff created an illegal state lottery, and summary judgment was properly granted. Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2011).*

The officer observed defendant make a wide turn and almost hit a curb, and that justified a stop for suspicion of DUI. The officer acted within his discretion of getting a DUI suspect out of the car. United States v. Smith, 448 Fed. Appx. 936 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

It is reasonable to assume that the subject of an arrest warrant was home at 7 a.m., absent evidence to the contrary. United States v. Felder, 457 Fed. Appx. 316 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):

Courts routinely rely on the time of day as a key factor in determining whether officers could reasonably believe the subject of an arrest warrant was home. E.g., United States v. Edmonds, 52 F.3d 1236, 1248 (3d Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 80 F.3d 810 (3d Cir. 1996) (reasoning that 6:45 a.m. was “early enough that it was unlikely someone living in the apartment would have already departed for the day”). The Eleventh Circuit has noted that “officers may presume that a person is home at certain times of the day—a presumption which can be rebutted by contrary evidence regarding the suspect’s known schedule.” United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530, 1535 (11th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2000) (“It was reasonable to believe, in the absence of contrary evidence, that [the suspect] would be at his residence at 6:00 in the morning.”). Similarly, the D.C. Circuit has concluded, without citing any other factors, that “the early morning hour was reason enough” for officers to believe a defendant was home when they attempted to execute an arrest warrant between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m. Thomas, 429 F.3d at 284, 286.

The search incident of defendant’s car for evidence of child enticement would be saved by Davis in any event, so the search is not suppressed. As to the search of his house, the good faith exception would apply there, too. [The court never goes to the merits of the searches.] United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2012).* [Note: The 11th Cir. condones the stagnation of the Fourth Amendment since the merits go undecided. There is a perpetual gray area where searches are possibly unconstitutional, but we’ll never know. I think it’s really just judicial laziness or complete lack of judicial curiosity to decide real legal issues. GFE is easy and requires no thought because one’s politics and constitutional apathy decides GFE questions.]

Officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop based on collective knowledge of intercepted phone conversations with drug slang. United States v. Donaldson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48083 (S.D. Ga. February 23, 2012).*

Search warrant for an apartment’s address was particular and with probable cause based on the address being in a Backpage.com ad. United States v. Latham, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48397 (D. Minn. April 5, 2012)* [Based on the opinion, this wasn’t remotely arguable.]

Plaintiff’s claims include a Fourth Amendment claim, but no facts suggest a seizure or a search so no Fourth Amendment violation, and that is dismissed. Wilfong v. State Bd. of Ethics, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47436 (M.D. La. March 5, 2012).*

Just because the defendant attempted to elude the police before, there was no exigency to enter a hotel room without a warrant because there was no evidence that the defendant knew the police were tailing him. United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012):

“We review the district court’s findings of historical fact for clear error, but the ultimate determination of whether the facts as found constitute exigent circumstances is reviewed de novo.” United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003). “The analysis of whether [the exigent circumstance] exception to the warrant requirement has been made out is an objective one ‘focusing on what a reasonable, experienced police officer would believe.'” Id. at 1021 (quoting In re Sealed Case 96-3167, 153 F.3d 759, 766, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 84 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). “[T]he police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984). When the exigency at issue is destruction of evidence, police officers must demonstrate a sufficient basis for an officer to believe that somebody in the residence (or hotel room, in this case) will imminently destroy evidence. United States v. Clement, 854 F.2d 1116, 1119 (8th Cir. 1988).

. . .

Looking then at the remaining two bases for the district court’s analysis, the circumstances relied upon by the district court are not exigent. “The urgency that would justify allowing the police officers, rather than a neutral judicial officer, to draw the reasonable inferences supporting this entry is not present in these facts.” United States v. Duchi, 906 F.2d 1278, 1282 (8th Cir. 1990). At the time these officers attempted to enter room 220, they reasonably believed that two of the occupants of room 220 possessed heroin in their shoes, and the officers believed that the men had, possibly, attempted to elude the police either to flee themselves, which seems more tenable, or, more tenuously, to destroy the evidence at some point. That the officers tracked the men also does not impact our analysis. There is no evidence supporting the inference that these men knew the police were tracking them at all, which might lend credence to that line of reasoning as it relates to the imminent destruction of evidence. Also, knowledge that drugs were in the room does not suffice to conclude that destruction was imminent.

Defendant was a passenger in a stolen car that was tracked by its GPS to a house where the car was stopped, still in the driveway. She and the driver were handcuffed and arrested. She was asked about her ID, and she said it was in her wallet in her purse in the passenger seat. The officer’s search of a small black bag within the purse that was not the wallet was unreasonable and invaded her reasonable expectation of privacy. The black bag obviously was not in plain view. State v. Bond, 150 N.M. 451, 2011 NMCA 36, 261 P.3d 599 (2011).*

Defendant’s Ohio parole officer had reasonable suspicion for a search of defendant’s believed residence because the PO saw him come and go from there as a potential resident, and he was registered as living elsewhere. There was no legal requirement that his actual PO be the searcher; another could do it. United States v. Davis, 415 Fed. Appx. 709, 2011 FED App. 0164N (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

The vehicle in which defendant was riding was stopped for a traffic offense, and the officer handcuffed everybody in the car and searched it without any indication of illegal activity. The search was unconstitutional even under Gant, but the state constitution grants more rights. State v. Abuan, 161 Wn. App. 135, 257 P.3d 1 (2011).*

Under the N.M. Const., the officer did not have sufficient independent articulable and reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of an initial traffic stop for a further inquiry regarding defendant’s relationship with his passenger, who the officer believed to be a prostitute. The only circumstances possibly giving rise to suspicion of solicitation of a prostitute before the officer began his inquiry were seeing defendant’s vehicle pull into and then out of an alley at 12:30 a.m. and the presence of a passenger who the officer believed to be a transvestite prostitute. State v. Olson, 2011 NMCA 56, 150 N.M. 348, 258 P.3d 1140 (2011), Cert. Granted, 265 P.3d 719 (N.M., 2011).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion that defendant was taking a box full of marijuana from a garage under surveillance based on a corroborated CI’s tip when they stopped his car. State v. Alderete, 2011
NMCA 55, 255 P.3d 377 (2011).*

Defendant’s stop for an illegal U-turn was valid. The officers’ prior information that defendant usually possessed a gun was justification for the protective weapons search. Long protective weapons searches are still valid under Gant. United States v. Torres, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61330 (S.D. N.Y. June 6, 2011).*

“We find that the story given by Defendant that he and Smith were looking for work in the oilfield, but they simply rode down the interstate without stopping anywhere, turning around in Lake Charles to return, is by itself suspicious. This, coupled with his passenger’s refusal to commit to where they had been, while basically saying, wherever the Defendant said we have been, compounded that suspicious behavior.” Calling out the drug dog was not unreasonable. State v. Kinchen, 71 So. 3d 344 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2011).*

Mere presence of a known prostitute in defendant’s car is not justification for questioning his relationship to her. Otherwise, no known prostitute could avoid being stopped. State v. Olson, 2011 NMCA 56, 150 N.M. 348, 258 P.3d 1140 (2011), Certiorari Granted, 265 P.3d 719 (N.M., 2011):

These very limited circumstances are insufficient to meet the standard of reasonable and articulable suspicion that Defendant had knowingly hired or offered to hire his passenger to engage in a sexual act. Were we to hold otherwise, police officers would have carte blanche based on suspicion of solicitation of a prostitute to stop any vehicle late at night whenever he saw a driver and a known prostitute in the vehicle, to require the driver to exit the vehicle, and to question the driver and the passenger regarding their relationship. That conduct, no different than the conduct in the present case, is tantamount to a seizure of a driver based on the mere presence of a passenger known to have committed a past criminal act.

A protective sweep did not permit officers to look in a hole in the wall in a closet where buy-money was found stashed. The state’s argument defendant had no standing in the apartment was based solely on his own testimony that he had been staying there three weeks. That was enough for standing. State v. Sublet, 2011 NMCA 75, 150 N.M. 378, 258 P.3d 1170 (2011).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in attempted burglary of cars when the car he was a passenger in was stopped. Defendant had no standing in the car under Rakas, and Gant did not apply. State v. K.N., 66 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).*

The record supports the conclusion that defendant consented to a search of his pockets during a stop. State v. Baxter, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 729 (July 27, 2011).*

Defendant’s public urination justified his stop. State v. Pack, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 580 (July 26, 2011).*

Officers illegally entered defendant’s house, but they all went outside where defendant argued with them, and then invited them inside to “talk about it.” Once inside, he revoked his consent. The second entry was by consent. United States v. McCormick, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126808 (E.D. Ky. November 1, 2011).*

Tasering a suicidal man repeatedly who was clutching a knife on his family and the situation was rapidly deteriorating was objectively reasonable supporting the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law. Sandberg v. City of Torrance, 456 Fed. Appx. 711 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

After a traffic stop, National Park Rangers finding a 57 year old defendant traveling with a minor he picked up in another state, who shared hotel rooms with her, bought a sex toy, and photographed her, was enough to show probable cause for a search of the computer in his car for child pornography, distinguishing other recent cases saying that sexual abuse of a minor does not automatically lead to the conclusion child porn was made. United States v. Miller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126772 (W.D. Va. November 2, 2011).*

Taser is a proper noun. www.Taser.com. To “tase” or to use a “taser” requires that Taser be capitalized. I’ll give that Tase is now a word, as in “don’t Tase me, bro.”

Three uses of little-T taser as a noun in the last nine days:

“After removing the other occupants from the home, the officers used a taser in an attempt to subdue Sandberg, which proved tragically ineffective.” Sandberg v. City of Torrance, 456 Fed. Appx. 711 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)

“Evans was tased and removed from the car.” People v. Evans, 200 Cal. App. 4th 735, 133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323 (2d Dist. 2011)

“Deputy Chavarria also testified he removed and displayed his taser gun while entering the apartment ‘because at that point, I wanted compliance.’” Turrubiate v. State, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8895 (Tex. App. — San Antonio November 9, 2011)

No case this month has used Taser properly.

It’s like “Kleenex”; a proper noun. I heard in law school that “aspirin” was once, and “Xerox” fought to protect its trademarked name. Taser may not care, and would it prefer become generic so everybody will buy theirs?

On a side note, in the local legal newspaper, our version of “big law” does a weekly article on an Eighth Circuit case which is probably longer than the original opinion. They mentioned “taser” but their spell checker made it “taster,” probably because “taser” isn’t in “big law’s” vocabulary.

Defendant was visiting a house that was searched under a warrant. His car was in the garage and searched too. It was reasonable for the police to believe that the car in the garage was subject to search with the premises. United States v. Powell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43866 (S.D. W.Va. March 29, 2012):

The scope of a warrant to search an entire property or premises “includes automobiles on the property or premises that are owned by or are under the dominion and control of the premises owner or which reasonably appear to be so controlled.” United States v. Patterson, 278 F.3d 315, 318 (4th Cir. 2002). Defendant argues that the searched vehicle at 228 North Queens Court could not have reasonably appeared to be owned or controlled by the owner of the searched property, James Meeks, because the searching officers were aware that the vehicle was registered to someone other than Meeks.

The Court disagrees. Although the vehicle was not registered to Meeks, it could still reasonably appear to be controlled by him, because it was within his attached garage. Courts have long considered attached garages to be part of the home. See Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 6 (1932) (warrantless search of garage violated Fourth Amendment); ….

Police were called to an on-the-street argument and saw defendant and a woman. Defendant was questioned by the police, and his speech was slurred and he refused to remove his hands from his pockets. He was arrested for public intoxication and convicted. The police did not need reasonable suspicion to talk to him. Woodson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. App. 2012).*

A knife of the defendant was suppressed as the direct product of a continuing interrogation after defendant invoked his right to counsel and remain silent. State v. Venegas, 79 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).*

Defendant’s nervousness and the officer’s prior knowledge of the defendant’s drug record was reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. [Not anywhere else in the country, that’s for sure.] Johnson v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 167 (February 22, 2012).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a gun found after defendant fled from the police during a stop allegedly without reasonable suspicion and dropped it. People v. Henderson, 965 N.E.2d 1285, 2012 IL App (1st) 101494 (2012).*

A task force of parole officers made up a list of parolees to be searched in the Syracuse area, and defendant was handcuffed and detained for his parole search, with the officers finding cocaine in his car out front of his house. The search was legal. People v. Johnson, 2012 NY Slip Op 3317, 94 A.D.3d 1529, 942 N.Y.S.2d 738 (4th Dept. 2012).*

A buy of heroin out of defendant’s truck was probable cause to search it under the automobile exception. United States v. Williams, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8564 (11th Cir. April 27, 2012).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the voluntariness of consent where the search was based on a dog alert. Consent or not was “immaterial.” United States v. Vazquez-Villa, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58690 (D. Kan. April 27, 2012),* prior appeal 423 Fed. Appx. 812 (10th Cir. 2011).

Search of outgoing prisoner mail was valid as ongoing concern about defendant’s secreting stolen evidence. United States v. Cook, 457 Fed. Appx. 285 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):

[W]e find that the district court did not err in denying Cook’s motion to suppress because the search of his outgoing mail by jail officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment. We have held that a prison official may constitutionally conduct a warrantless search of an inmate’s outgoing mail so long as the search is “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540, 547 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the U.S. Supreme Court has often observed, the investigation and prevention of ongoing illegal inmate activity furthers the legitimate penological objectives of prison security and inmate rehabilitation. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 411-12, 109 S. Ct. 1874, 104 L. Ed. 2d 459 (1989); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 412-13, 94 S. Ct. 1800, 40 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1974); see also United States v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688, 698-99 (2d Cir. 1996).

Here, jail officials’ search of Cook’s mail was part of an effort to prevent him from further secreting or trafficking in stolen goods. Because their actions were based on a reasonable belief that the correspondence in question contained information regarding such criminal activity, the search of Cook’s mail was reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest and did not offend his Fourth Amendment rights.

The officer had reasonable suspicion to grab defendant’s arm to talk to him. When defendant fled the officer had probable cause to arrest. United States v. Flint, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141224 (D. Utah December 8, 2011).*

Plaintiff filed a § 1983 case alleging that a ruse drug interdiction checkpoint violated the Fourth Amendment, but lost. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond only applies to actual roadblocks. Webb v. Arbuckle, 456 Fed. Appx. 374 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):

Numerous courts have upheld the constitutionality of ruse checkpoint operations like the one in this case or have implicitly approved of their use. For instance, in United States v. Martinez, 358 F.3d 1005, 1006-07 (8th Cir. 2004), officers stopped Orlando Martinez (“Martinez”) for rolling through a stop sign at the top of an exit ramp that followed a sign advising of an upcoming drug checkpoint. Martinez argued that the police were operating an illegal checkpoint, relying in part on Edmond. Id. at 1008. The court rejected Martinez’s contention, distinguishing Edmond as involving an “actual checkpoint[] at which motorists were stopped regardless of whether they had committed a traffic violation” and noting that “[a]ny traffic violation, however minor, provides probable cause for a traffic stop.” Id. at 1008-09 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court further noted that “[t]he fact that the officers may have believed Martinez was carrying illegal drugs does not invalidate an otherwise valid stop.” Id. at 1009 (citation omitted). In upholding the constitutionality of another ruse checkpoint operation on similar grounds, the court in United States v. Williams, 359 F.3d 1019, 1021 (8th Cir. 2004) stated that “the deputy here probably pursued the traffic violation because he suspected drug trafficking …. But a law enforcement officer’s ulterior motives in initiating contact with an individual (or his pursuit of the more general programmatic purposes of the operation) are irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment question when probable cause … exists.”). In addressing a ruse checkpoint operation, the Seventh Circuit stated:

Wendt argues that based on City of Indianapolis v. Edmond …, the traffic stop was unreasonable because the officers lacked individualized suspicion. Moreover, Wendt asserts that the DEA established a “programmatic regiment” to stop and search cars with out-of-state license plates for drugs. An automobile stop will violate the Constitution if it is deemed “unreasonable” under the circumstances. The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable when the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Wendt’s reliance on Edmond is misplaced.

In Edmond, the police established various drug checkpoints, where officers stopped and questioned the driver of every car that passed through. The Supreme Court found that officers seized motorists without any particularized suspicion, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In contrast, here, the traffic stop was conducted based on the officers’ reasonable belief that traffic violations had occurred.

United States v. Wendt, 465 F.3d 814, 816-17 (7th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Flynn, 309 F.3d 736, 738-39 (10th Cir. 2002), the Tenth Circuit held the use of a ruse checkpoint was constitutional and rejected the argument that such checkpoints were illegal under Edmond. As these courts have noted, ruse checkpoint operations that stop cars only when there is probable cause, such as the sign detail operation at issue in the instant case, are distinguishable from Edmond and are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 47 (“When law enforcement authorities pursue primarily general crime control purposes at checkpoints such as here, however, stops can only be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion.”).