- CA3: Def lacked standing to challenge search of co-def cell phone
- The Hill: iPhone’s facial recognition could lead to real life ‘Minority Report’
- Conservative Review: How the feds swipe your stuff — and how Congress could stop it
- OH2: No record of suppression hearing brought up means no appellate review
- OH10: Stopping the first person officers see after hearing gunshots was without RS
online since Feb. 24, 2003
WebPage Visits: real non-robot hits since 2010; approx. 20k posts since 2003
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
State courts (and some USDC opinions)
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Resources
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
--Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
--Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
--Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Frontier Foundation
NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
“I am still learning.”
—Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
—Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today."
— Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property."
—Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."
—United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
---Pepé Le Pew
—Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
Articles on constitutionality of Arpaio pardon for conviction for contempt for violating court order on 4A rights
Politico: Legal groups move to challenge Trump’s Arpaio pardon by Madeline Conway
Truthout: Will Judge Overturn Arpaio Pardon? by Marjorie Cohn
Slate: Was Trump’s Pardon of Joe Arpaio Unconstitutional? by Dahlia Lithwick
DiversityInc: Arpaio Pardon Unconstitutional, Justice Groups Challenge by Kaitlyn D’Onofrio
WaPo: The presidential pardon power is not absolute by Laurence H. Tribe and Ron Fein
Techcrunch: Report: Facebook gave special investigator Robert Mueller detailed info on Russian ad buys
Techcrunch: Report: Facebook gave special investigator Robert Mueller detailed info on Russian ad buys by Jonathan Shieber:
The trial court did not err in suppressing the results of the warrantless blood draw performed on defendant because the State failed to show that the blood was drawn pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, and implied consent was not such an exception, and defendant did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. He was informed only that it was mandatory in light of his prior DUI convictions and was never informed that refusal to submit would result in the suspension of driver’s license. The good-faith exception did not apply because no officer followed the proper procedure of reading the implied consent form to defendant. State v. Henry, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 845 (Sept. 14, 2017).
2255 petitioner’s IAC Fourth Amendment claim is based on the same argument rejected at trial and on appeal, so it’s denied because the Fourth Amendment wasn’t violated. Smith v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148864 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 14, 2017).*
D.N.M.: Just because the officer would search again, despite the court’s order the 4A was violated, doesn’t mean he won’t be deterred because he should be
On the government’s motion to reconsider, it argues that the cost-benefits analysis of the exclusionary rule should be evaluated in terms of the fact the officer would have searched here no matter what, so there was nothing to deter. Yes, there is, says the court. United States v. Cornejo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146507 (D. N.M. Sept. 11, 2017):
M.D.La.: Def claims an illegal search led to his arrest; his admissions on jail phone calls are attenuated from that
Defendant’s calls from jail to his girlfriend about destroying evidence were attenuated from any prior illegality. “The Court finds that the nexus between the original unlawful search and the challenged evidence was attenuated by the intervening phone calls, an independent criminal act. The nexus was further attenuated by the subsequent probable cause and consent searches, neither of which have been challenged. Accordingly, the challenged evidence was derived by a ‘means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” United States v. Reed, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147331 (M.D. La. Sept. 12, 2017).
Defendant showed no possessory interest in his girlfriend’s car to have standing to object to a search of it. And, the record shows she consented to the search. Hill v. State, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 543 (Sept. 12, 2017).*
E.D.Ky.: Def’s keys under him when arrested were properly seized incident to arrest; testing key in a lock wasn’t a search
Defendant’s keys were on the ground under him when he was arrested face down and handcuffed behind his back. They were seen when he was lifted up to stand. They were seized incident to his arrest, and inserting the key into a lock to see if it works is not a search under established precedent in this circuit. United States v. Harvey, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147021 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2017).
Reasonable suspicion: strong smell of air fresheners in the vehicle, defendant’s statements about an uncle’s illness and defendant’s own whereabouts the night before were vague and conflicting, and the location of the traffic stop was along a stretch of interstate that was known by the deputy to be a drug trafficking corridor. Taylor v. State, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 416 (Sept. 14, 2017).*