The exclusionary rule does not apply to drug testing in a termination of parental rights case. In the Interest of L.C.L., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 6018 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) July 16, 2019).
The smell of marijuana during a traffic stop was probable cause to search. United States v. Flowers, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118221 (D. Neb. July 16, 2019).*
Google as an email provider acts as a private actor when it scans images attached to email for child pornography. United States v. Crawford, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118239 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2019).*
Where there was probable cause and the automobile exception applied, the fact defendant walked away from the vehicle didn’t prohibit its search. Cleveland v. State, 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 316 (July 15, 2019).
Defendant was apparently asleep parked in an alley, and parking in an alley was a traffic violation. When the officer tried to rouse him, he could see drug paraphernalia on the console, and that justified a search. United States v. Musquiz, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118238 (D. Neb. July 16, 2019).*
Forbes: Are Conversational Interfaces The ‘Foot In The Door’ For Government Surveillance? by Ilker Koksal:
Amazon Echo, released in 2014, introduced voice software into the home, quickly followed by Google Home, Apples’s HomePod and other generic smart speakers. In fact, the researcher Canalys, suggests 78 million smart speakers were sold last year. And don’t forget the millions of people who use digital assistants on their smartphones and tablets.
There was probable cause on the totality for this search warrant. Defendant’s attack on what’s not there doesn’t help him. United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20851 (6th Cir. July 15, 2019).
There was a factual basis for defendant’s stop. The request for identification was reasonable, and the stop as a whole was not unreasonable in length. United States v. Key, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117233 (N.D. Ga. July 15, 2019).*
ClickOrlando.com: Be careful when driving with large amounts of cash in your vehicle by Steve Montiero:
Troopers may ask to see proof.
A Carpenter CSLI plain error argument isn’t reached because of deficiencies in the record brought up. State v. Avant, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 415 (July 15, 2019)*:
Defendant twice asked the USMJ for a Franks hearing and never got one. On review, application of the good faith exception is sustained. “Here, the Government has shown that McMahon and the other law enforcement officers that executed the search acted in good faith on it. Consequently, the Government avoids any possible suppression resulting from a Franks hearing.” [Which doesn’t follow.] United States v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117326 (W.D. N.Y. July 15, 2019).*
In his habeas case, petitioner claimed defense counsel failed to pursue a suppression motion over seizure of his trial papers in his jail cell before trial. Defense counsel in fact litigated that by filing an emergency motion and getting a hearing and recovering papers. It wasn’t called a “suppression motion,” but it was the functional equivalent of one. So, no IAC. Pawley v. Inch, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117301 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2019).*
The fact a stop was started in one county and actually occurred as defendant crossed the county line is not a basis for suppressing the stop. Defendant’s consent to search his house is suppressed, however, because of language difficulties: “Thus, under the totality of the circumstances presented here, the undersigned finds that the consent given by Defendant cannot be considered free, intelligent, and unequivocal.” United States v. Villa, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117356 (W.D. N.C. Date: June 10, 2019).
Defendant was indicted in 2018 for a 2013 tax search. The warrant did not specify the crime under investigation, although the leader of the raid told the others what they were looking for. Nothing was incorporated, and the court finds the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment for lack of particularity. Yet, a hearing will be held on the question of good faith. United States v. Drago, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117353 (E.D. N.Y. June 25, 2019).*
A trash pull alone should not be enough for probable cause to search a house. Here, there was more of complaints of neighbors of people coming and going at all hours. “Investigators confirmed this complaint during their own surveillance of the Property, as they observed vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the Property during the early morning.” United States v. Tate, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116465 (N.D. Ohio July 13, 2019).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress where it would have lost on the merits. State v. Starks, 2019-Ohio-2842, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 2934 (2d Dist. July 12, 2019).*
SF Chronical: DNA hearings: SF officers gave suspect in rapes alcohol test even though they didn’t think he was drunk by Evan Sernoffsky:
San Francisco police never smelled alcohol when they pulled over Orlando Vilchez Lazo last year. They never gave him a field sobriety test. And, an officer testified in court on Monday, they never believed he was intoxicated.
But in the early morning hours of July 7, 2018, officers nonetheless made Vilchez Lazo blow into an alcohol screening test. They wanted his DNA.
“Both parties and the district court failed to address qualified immunity’s second question. The district court did not consider whether Defendants’ conduct—even assuming it violated the Fourth Amendment—violated clearly established law. See Morrow, 917 F.3d at 874. McDonald points to no such law on appeal. On remand, the parties and the district court must focus on whether clearly established law at the time of this police raid prohibited the force used under the circumstances. See Escondido, 139 S. Ct. at 503-04.” McDonald v. McClelland, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20581 (5th Cir. July 11, 2019).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 case fails because it was filed outside the statute of limitations. Leonard v. Polk County Sheriff Dep’t, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20535 (11th Cir. July 10, 2019).*