E.D.N.C.: Def who shipped FedEx packages under an alias had no standing to contest a search in transit since it was impossible for him to claim them

Defendant shipped packages by Federal Express using his deceased brother’s name as an alias. He had no standing to contest the search of the packages at the Greensboro NC hub. He had no ability to retrieve the packages in transit because his name didn’t match the names on the packages. Once received, he claimed them. United States v. Faruqrose, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160805 (E.D. N.C. Sep. 20, 2018):
Continue reading

Posted in Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Def who shipped FedEx packages under an alias had no standing to contest a search in transit since it was impossible for him to claim them

Project on Government Oversight: A Day Without the Fourth Amendment

Project on Government Oversight: A Day Without the Fourth Amendment by Jake Laperruque:

Accompany our hero on his journey through a fictional world without the Fourth Amendment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Project on Government Oversight: A Day Without the Fourth Amendment

CA3: Work email subpoena gets QI in § 1983 case; law still evolving. Kerr: Confusing?

A prosecutor and state investigator subpoenaed plaintiff’s work emails from Penn State. They get qualified immunity because there was no clearly established law that the subpoena was invalid. Plaintiff argues the evolving standards of the reasonable expectation of privacy in work emails, but case law from other jurisdictions doesn’t carry the day in light of qualified immunity. Plaintiff seeks to amend to plead the Stored Communications Act, and the case is remanded for that. Walker v. Coffey, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26864 (3d Cir. Sep. 20, 2018):
Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, E-mail, Qualified immunity, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on CA3: Work email subpoena gets QI in § 1983 case; law still evolving. Kerr: Confusing?

PA: The automobile exception doesn’t apply in def’s own driveway; PA SCt held that before Collins

The police had a defective search warrant to bring them to defendant’s house to search the car in the driveway. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the year before Collins v. Virginia that the automobile exception didn’t apply in one’s driveway, so the state doesn’t get that fall back argument. Commonwealth v. Chesney, 2018 PA Super 262, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1042 (Sep. 20, 2018).

The court can’t determine whether defendant is an “aggrieved person” for standing on a wiretap order because there’s no hard evidence it’s his voice and he won’t admit that it was his voice for standing. Turning to the merits, there was probable cause and nexus for the wiretap. United States v. Montemayor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160966 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 20, 2018).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Curtilage, Standing | Comments Off on PA: The automobile exception doesn’t apply in def’s own driveway; PA SCt held that before Collins

DE applies Carpenter to January CSLI search; no action yet on state’s effort to get it again after motion to suppress

Defendant was the subject of a CSLI warrant in January 2018. After he filed a motion to suppress under Carpenter decided in June, the state sought the same information by a search warrant in August 2018. Carpenter applies here. The state pleads the independent source doctrine, but the court can’t decide that now. State v. Rone, 2018 Del. Super. LEXIS 396 (Sep. 20, 2018).

Defendant’s stop for trespassing again on the victim’s property was with reasonable suspicion, and the reasonable suspicion escalated the longer the stop went on. United States v. Marin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161080 (N.D. Iowa July 26, 2018).*

Posted in Cell site location information, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on DE applies Carpenter to January CSLI search; no action yet on state’s effort to get it again after motion to suppress

LA1: Not filing a motion and putting on proof on suppression issue gets it denied; but we’ll let you try it again

Making a constitutional argument about the implied consent law in opening statement and closing argument without a motion or briefing it is insufficient. Yet, remanded so he can do it again. [Not in most states; it would be denied and not remanded.] Bloom v. State, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1770 (La. App. 1 Cir. Sep. 20, 2018):
Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading | Comments Off on LA1: Not filing a motion and putting on proof on suppression issue gets it denied; but we’ll let you try it again

FL: Use of Stringray to find def to arrest him was valid or valid under GFE

The use of a Stingray cell site simulator to find defendant to find him to arrest him didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Even if it did, the good faith exception makes it valid here. Andres v. State, 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1707 (Sep. 20, 2018):
Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell site location information, Stingray / Hailstorm | Comments Off on FL: Use of Stringray to find def to arrest him was valid or valid under GFE

WaPo: Pr. George’s police thought they were bursting into home of a drug dealer. They were at an innocent man’s door instead.

WaPo: Pr. George’s police thought they were bursting into home of a drug dealer. They were at an innocent man’s door instead. by Lynh Bui and Clarence Williams:
Continue reading

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off on WaPo: Pr. George’s police thought they were bursting into home of a drug dealer. They were at an innocent man’s door instead.

NPR: Federal Agents Board Buses 100 Miles From Border To Ask, Are You A US Citizen?

NPR: Federal Agents Board Buses 100 Miles From Border To Ask, Are You A US Citizen? by Samantha Raphelson:
Continue reading

Posted in Immigration checkpoints | Comments Off on NPR: Federal Agents Board Buses 100 Miles From Border To Ask, Are You A US Citizen?

S.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep led to plain view of firearm and cell phone

During a protective sweep, a firearm and cell phones were seen, and a search warrant was later issued for the firearm. His cell phone was in plain view and seized when defendant was arrested. The officers came back for the firearm with the warrant, and this was valid. United States v. Felton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159443 (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 19, 2018).*

Defendant wasn’t entitled to a hearing on her post-conviction petition alleging that her plea was involuntary because it was based on an illegal search. For all it appears, she wouldn’t prevail because the search was by consent. Stragliati v. State, 2018 Mo. App. LEXIS 1108 (Sep. 18, 2018).*

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep led to plain view of firearm and cell phone

AR: Cell phone search suppressed and state gets do over with independent source doctrine

Probable cause was shown for a search warrant for a cell phone for taking video of defendant’s daughters changing clothes under a door. The independent source doctrine permitted police to get a second search warrant for the phone after the first was suppressed for failing to accurately describe how the police came into possession of the phone. The contents of the prior search didn’t make it into the affidavit. Johnson v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 429, 2018 Ark. App. LEXIS 524 (Sep. 19, 2018).

Police were called about a trespasser at 2:45 am and defendant was stopped after officers saw him driving erratically and on the wrong side of the road. Defendant’s fast speech and explanation that he was on the other person’s property looking for a vehicle title at 2:45 am and his driving on the wrong side of the road supported reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence of drugs. The stop was reasonable in length. Defendant wasn’t handcuffed when the officer was talking to him, and that here means he was not in custody. The government concedes that some of the evidence can be suppressed, so that’s as far as it’s granted. United States v. Marin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159967 (N.D. Iowa Sep. 19, 2018).*

Posted in Cell phones, Independent source, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on AR: Cell phone search suppressed and state gets do over with independent source doctrine

CA7: Affiant’s omission of adverse info on CI that he had priors, was on probation, and paid didn’t undermine fresh, detailed, and corroborated info

The affiant left out adverse information about the CI including felony convictions, that he was on probation, and that he was paid. Still, the information from the CI was fresh, detailed, and significantly corroborated, and probable cause still existed. United States v. Bradford, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26638 (7th Cir. Sep. 19, 2018):
Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA7: Affiant’s omission of adverse info on CI that he had priors, was on probation, and paid didn’t undermine fresh, detailed, and corroborated info