“[W]e conclude that Fernandez made no showing at trial of an invasion of his own rights to establish he had standing to complain of the State’s use of the writ of attachment to secure the attendance for trial of complaining witness Flores.” Fernandez v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1482 (Tex. App. – Texarkana Feb. 20, 2020).
Defendant in his direct appeal attempts to litigate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but the court finds the record not sufficiently developed to fairly resolve this question. People v. Gayden, 2020 IL 123505, 2020 Ill. LEXIS 177 (Feb. 21, 2020).*
When an overdose call is made to 911, it isn’t unreasonable for a police officer to enter with EMTs or the fire department. State v. Eldridge, 2020 N.H. LEXIS 18 (Feb. 19. 2020):
“The underlying facts in the affidavit compare the actions of Tualua with the actions of the people who committed the prior EZ Pawn robberies, which would allow the issuing judge to make his or her own conclusions. Under the totality of the circumstances in the affidavit, such as the fact that all the targets were EZ Pawns and involved sledgehammers, and Tualua used a sledgehammer to smash jewelry cases, there was a fair probability that a DNA-swab would show that Tualua’s DNA would be recovered in connection with the prior robberies. The issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to issue the warrant. The Court recommends denying Tualua’s motion to suppress.” United States v. Goldsby, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30252 (D. Nev. Jan. 13, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28502 (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2020).*
“Because defendant Hood has failed to even attempt to demonstrate that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the parcels that were the subject of a seizure on February 12, 2015 by claiming ownership of them or otherwise, his motion to suppress the fruits of that search must be denied.” There was also a Franks challenge that failed for a “substantial preliminary showing” of falsity or materiality. United States v. Hood, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30342 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020).*
WaPo: ICE runs facial-recognition searches on millions of Md. drivers, alarming immigration and privacy activists by Drew Harwell and Erin Cox (“Maryland defied federal guidelines in 2013 when it created driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. But in recent years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have had direct access to the records in what immigrant rights advocates say is a betrayal of trust.”)
The collective knowledge doctrine doesn’t require every officer to know everything. El Pueblo De Puerto Rico v. Jiméne, 2020 PR App. LEXIS 278 (P.R. App. Jan. 30, 2020). (That, of course, is evident from the word “collective.”).
A year typo in the affidavit’s narrative presented in chronological order could be ignored as a scrivener’s error. The investigation started December 2016 and ended January 2017. There was probable cause on the totality. United States v. Kessler, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29950 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 21, 2020).
A single trash pull that produced some evidence of limited possession at a duplex with one trash container was still probable cause with nexus to defendant. United States v. Hogan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30039 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, 2020).
Coworker’s recording plaintiff’s telephone call was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Goss v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29852 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2020).*
The automobile exception did not apply where defendant was stopped for an alleged theft and the property was recovered before the search occurred, thereby obviating it. State v. Whitman, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1481 (Tex. App. – Eastland Feb. 21, 2020).
Pro se inmate plaintiff fails to show a cause of action for retaliatory public strip searches in prison. Hyberg v. Enslow, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5371 (10th Cir. Feb. 21, 2020).*
The border search exception applies to travel to and from the Virgin Islands, no matter which way the traveler is going. United States v. Baxter, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5341 (3d Cir. Feb. 21, 2020).
Detention center officer’s two-handed shove to a non-resisting detainee, breaking the detainee’s hip, was unreasonable force in violation of the detainee’s constitutional right to be from the use of excessive force under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment, and it was clearly established at the time. Quinette v. Reed, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5271 (11th Cir. Feb. 21, 2020).*
“The process of obtaining a search warrant exists to ensure that officers first gather sufficient facts indicating criminal activity before scouring through private property. Though search warrants are not always perfect or as specific as courts might like, the process itself acts as a bulwark against Fourth Amendment violations. [¶] While investigating allegations of child abuse, officers were invited into the home of Veronica Villareal and Defendant Edward Verdugo. Once inside, they immediately smelled burnt marijuana. After Villareal’s son admitted to smoking marijuana and possessing paraphernalia, officers sought a warrant to search the entire home. In that search, they discovered approximately 17.4 grams of heroin and a firearm in a black bag belonging to Verdugo. Before the Court is Verdugo’s Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Doc. 28). Although the search warrant did not make specific reference to Verdugo’s black bag, the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of paraphernalia provided justification for the officers to search the entire home.” United States v. Verdugo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29579 (D. N.M. Feb. 19, 2020).*
Security Boulevard: Personal Data Collection: Outsourcing Surveillance by Mark Rasch (“The buying and selling of personal data means more entities are able to conduct surveillance without needing a warrant”)