A state court judge issued a ping order and the phone crossed state lines. Was it a tracking order or an SCA order? “The Court sees no need to venture further into the quagmire of tracking devices, the SCA, and jurisdictional authority to issue warrants because even if the warrants were issued contrary to law, the good faith exception applies. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 913. ‘[T]he exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in “objectively reasonable reliance” on a warrant later held invalid.’ Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 239, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 180 L. Ed. 2d 285 (2011) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 922).” United States v. Gutierrez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191259 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2018).
Defendant didn’t show that the third party’s consent was invalid or that the plain view didn’t apply. Stuart-Holt v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191268 (D.N.H. Nov. 8, 2018).*
Defendant’s suppression argument five months after conviction is too late. Besides, it doesn’t allege anything of substance anyway. United States v. Alahmedalabdaloklah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189719 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2018).*
Defendant’s search claim is denied without even telling us what it is, it apparently was that insubstantial. United States v. Christian, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31340 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018).*
Defendant’s PO [clearly] had reasonable suspicion for a probation search: smell of marijuana in the house and a snapchat picture of defendant with a firearm. United States v. McGregor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189051 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018),* adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187976 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2018).*
Defendant’s means and opportunity to commit this bank robbery and carjacking in flight was probable cause. Video showing him at a motel was nexus to his room. United States v. Evans, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31326 (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018).
“[T]he record indicates that the Government made significant, successful efforts to corroborate CS-1’s statements. Throughout the investigation of the DTO, CS-1’s statements were corroborated by conversations intercepted pursuant to the Wiretap Orders, evidence obtained during arrests, and physical surveillance by government agents. Far from demonstrating reckless disregard for the truth, the evidence gathered throughout the investigation supported the Government’s belief that CS-1 was credible.” United States v. Guillen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189789 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 6, 2018).*
Marital privilege doesn’t apply to jail telephone calls defendant knew would be recorded because of the lack of a confidential communication. United States v. Ayala, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31345 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018).
The Pennsylvania Wiretap Act is strictly construed to protect privacy. The state’s discovery violation of a wiretap mandates suppression. Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 2018 PA Super 302 (Nov. 5, 2018).*
Defendant’s vehicle was stopped and several garage door openers were found. Using them to try to find defendant’s stash house was a search and it was reasonable, although close to the edge. United States v. Correa, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31204 (7th Cir. Nov. 5, 2018):
WaPo: Lawsuit targets Greyhound over warrantless stopping of buses by border agents by Spencer S. Hsu
Lawyers for a California woman asked a state judge Thursday to order Greyhound Lines to stop allowing federal immigration agents to board its buses and demand identification and proof of citizenship from passengers.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that the postings have been a bit behind. That’s because I’ve spent the last two weeks reading 2600 pages of page proofs for Trial Handbook for Arkansas Lawyers 4th. Today I have to drive two hours to a detention hearing.
I’ll get caught up this weekend, I hope.
Confidential spousal communications obtained by a search warrant do not lose their privileged character. People v. Gliniewicz, 2018 IL App (2d) 170490, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 818 (Nov. 2, 2018).
The state seized text messages but didn’t disclose them in discovery because they considered it rebuttal. After the opening statements, the state decided that they needed them in its case in chief. The trial court granted a mistrial that wasn’t barred by double jeopardy. State v. Vogt, 2018-Ohio-4457, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4785 (4th Dist. Oct. 29, 2018).* [If they were obtained by a search, why wasn’t discovery disclosure mandated before trial?]
Defendant’s cross examination of the officer who authored the affidavit for the search warrant to attack his credibility by the affidavit “opened the door” to defendant’s other crimes which were admitted under 404(b) on the government’s request on redirect. United States v. Birchette, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31513 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2018).
The trial court’s review of the magistrate’s determination of probable cause should have been deferential and not de novo. There was a substantial basis for probable cause. People v. Cox, 2018 CO 88, 2018 Colo. LEXIS 905 (Nov. 5, 2018).
Defendant claimed he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the screen of his cell phone because it was in his pocket up until he was arrested. When the phone was removed from his pocket, a message appeared on the screen, and that could be viewed by the police and testified to. United States v. Brixen, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31512 (7th Cir. Nov. 7, 2018):
WaPo: Motel 6 agrees to pay up to $7.6 million to settle claim it helped ICE target Latino guests by Lindsey Bever:
After a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Motel 6, the chain agreed to pay as much as $7.6 million to guests who said their private information was given to U.S. immigration agents, according to court records.
A car is not abandoned by the defendant merely because, when he fled, a confederate stayed behind. United States v. Gibbs, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187572 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 2, 2018).
The audio recording of the police-citizen interaction has enough, along with its gaps, to make the Franks preliminary showing, and a hearing will be set. United States v. Perry, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188320 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2018).*