WaPo: No-knock raids have led to fatal encounters and small drug seizures by Nicole Dungca and Jenn Abelson
WaPo: What to know about no-knock warrants by Courtney Kan (“Amir Locke and Breonna Taylor were killed while police executed no-knock warrants. Here’s what to know about the practice that allows officers to force entry.”)
NPR: WNYC: The Takeaway: How Crime, Technology, and Civil Liberties Collide Through Geofence Warrants (“Last month, a federal judge in Richmond, Virginia ruled that the use of a geofence warrant to make an arrest in a robbery case was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourth Amendment. Civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about geofence warrants for a long time because they give police data for anyone whose phone was in a given area during a specific timeframe. The Takeaway speaks with Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, about what this latest ruling means for the use of geofence warrants going forward.”)
CNS: St. Louis County defends wanted alert system at Eighth Circuit (“The system allows police officers to issue alerts for suspects based on their own probable cause without having a judge sign off on a warrant.”)
“We conclude Defendant’s motion was insufficiently particular to alert the metropolitan court or State that the grounds for suppressing evidence related to the checkpoint’s illegality.” “Defendant’s motion, rather, was based upon the State lacking reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant. The reasonable suspicion required for a continued investigatory detention related to a sobriety checkpoint, however, is not required to stop a particular motorist at the checkpoint initially; the legality of a checkpoint stop and the legality of an investigative detention arising from that stop are distinct issues such that raising one does not necessarily implicate the other.” State v. Hebenstreit, 2022 N.M. App. LEXIS 20 (Apr. 12, 2022).
The affidavit for this search warrant provided probable cause to search defendant’s home. It showed a connection between defendant’s alleged drug dealing and his house. United States v. Maye, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66264 (D.Conn. Apr. 11, 2022).*
The court “recommits” the R&R to the USMJ to determine standing. Three people were in the car. United States v. Garth, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66535 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 11, 2022).*
Defendant was medevaced by helicopter after a car crash. Her blood was drawn for medical purposes, not investigation. It was reasonable. It would also have taken four hours to get a BAC search warrant. State v. Moore, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 164 (Apr. 12, 2022).*
“Based on the language in the [Fourth Amendment] and Ohio Constitutions, we now hold that material witnesses are entitled to these basic, fundamental rights and therefore agree with the Eighth District that the state’s request for a warrant to detain a material witness must be by oath or affirmation and be supported by probable cause to believe that the witness is material and that the warrant is necessary to procure the witness’s attendance at trial. Federal courts have also held as much.” State v. Eatmon, 2022-Ohio-1197, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 721 (Apr. 12, 2022).
“At issue on appeal is (1) whether the district court erred when it found that the consent, automobile, and emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement were met such as to allow the admittance of the severed leg and arm found in the trunk of the Impala and (2) whether the plain view doctrine allowed the admission of the bloodied clothes found in the Galvan garage and the bloodied boots found in the Galvan residence. In addition, Surber challenges a second warrant authorizing searches of the Impala and the Yukon because those warrants were authorized with reference to the prior claimed unlawful searches of the Impala and the Galvan residence.” In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, this is harmless error if error at all. State v. Surber, 311 Neb. 320 (Apr. 8, 2022).*
“The Court finds this stop was constitutional. There was reasonable suspicion that justified the prolonged detention. The arresting officer, Texas Department of Public Safety State Trooper John Loftin, developed reasonable suspicion during the course of the stop. The driver of the vehicle, Cory Barton, struggled to respond to basic questions about the itinerary of his trip to and from Houston. … These include a failure to recall the name of his hotel, where his destination was in relation to Houston, and what type of car he had just worked on. Id. Mr. Barton also stuttered when giving at least one of those responses. … During Trooper Loftin’s questioning of Ms. Booth, Mr. Barton interrupted to show Trooper Loftin a receipt to establish that he ‘wasn’t lying.’ … Going out of your way to interrupt someone to show proof of a trip is unusual behavior. The struggle to recall basic questions, his stuttering, and his interruption of Ms. Booth to provide proof of his trip all created reasonable suspicion to Trooper Loftin.” United States v. Booth, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66232 (W.D.Tex. Apr. 11, 2022),* R&R 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66308 (W.D.Tex. Feb. 22, 2022).*
Reason: Faulty Police Field Tests Said This Trucker Was Carrying 700 Gallons of Meth. It Was Diesel. by Ed Ciaramella (“Juan Guzman spent nearly six weeks in jail based on unreliable field tests that have resulted in hundreds of other wrongful arrests.”)
Evidence supporting defendant’s charges was admissible under the attenuation doctrine. His flight and the circumstances surrounding his flight broke the causal connection between the alleged unlawful police conduct and the evidence supporting his charges. Also, where the trial court denied a motion to suppress as untimely but ruled on the merits anyway and then allowed defendant to enter a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial, the State could not rely on timeliness ruling as a basis to affirm because timeliness was not dispositive. Barney v. State, 2022 WY 49, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 49 (Apr. 8, 2022).*
The inferences from the totality of phone conversations added up to probable cause for this warrant. United States v. Davis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65950 (D.Minn. Apr. 8, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s search on supervised release. United States v. Watkins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65999 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2022).*
All family members have common authority over common areas of the house. United States v. Campany, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9518 (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).
Defendant’s Franks claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails for failing to show what the false statements were that were recklessly made. Dehate v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9519 (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).*
The officers get summary judgment on an excessive force claim because the force they used was reasonable. A.B. v. County of San Diego, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9534 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).*
Illegal search claim is not cognizable in a state habeas petition which is for facial challenges only. Boyd v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 72, 2022 Ark. LEXIS 98 (Apr. 7, 2022).*
There was probable cause to believe that defendant’s home computer would have evidence of his $10m digital theft from Microsoft from when he worked there. United States v. Kvashuk, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8275 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022).*
There was a jury question whether the officer’s take down of plaintiff was reasonable under the circumstances. Laplante v. City of Battle Creek, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9453 (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).*
The fact defendant learned of the CI’s identity on the search warrant after his guilty plea wasn’t grounds to set it aside. People v. Kimmons, 2022 IL App (2d) 180589, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 169 (Mar. 29, 2022).*
The stop was reasonably extended by the passenger’s not providing paperwork timely and in giving apparently false information. United States v. Wise, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65558 (D.S.D. Apr. 8, 2022).*
There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop. “The totality of the circumstances—Defendant’s odd and evasive behavior, the visible bulge in Defendant’s waistband, and Defendant’s unprovoked flight over a fence and into the backyard of a private residence he could not access—gave the police a reasonable basis to stop Defendant.” State v. Riles, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 538 (La. App. 4 Cir. Mar. 30, 2022).*
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court found that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his wallet. It is undisputed that Defendant consented to the search of the vehicle. In the same way and immediately thereafter, Defendant handed over his wallet to Deputy Camacho. To be sure, Deputy Camacho’s choice of words—‘let me see it for a moment’—and Defendant’s lack of a verbal response does not vitiate the voluntariness of the consent.” United States v. Tellez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65617 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 8, 2022).*
“None of these allegations is sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing either. At bottom, Rodriguez is merely criticizing the tactics employed by the police during their investigation. See United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the defendant’s allegation that ‘the investigators should have done more work’ does not meet ‘the high standard for convening a Franks hearing’). His criticisms do not call into question the truth of the facts contained in the affidavit of probable cause.” United States v. Rodriguez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65492 (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2022).*
The government had information of a download of child pornography from 17 months earlier, but it was not stale because of other information in the affidavit that showed defendant was a likely collector. United States v. Stuart, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65126 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2022).*
Defendant focuses on five week old information as showing staleness, but there was other information after that (two intercepted conversations) that suffice to obviate staleness. United States v. Parrish, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65114 (S.D.Ga. Apr. 7, 2022).*
“In sum, though the stop could have been shorter (and begun more efficiently), it wasn’t impermissibly prolonged. Marcel and Haigler’s actions were reasonably related to investigating an expired license plate. And this basis for the stop quickly mushroomed into other inquiries that each took time. Though Marcel at first waited for Haigler to check Perez’s license, the stop also involved a fictitious tag. After Haigler gave him Perez’s license, Marcel continued investigating why the license wasn’t ‘good’ on his laptop before turning to an investigation of the tag.” United States v. Perez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9405 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022).
The search warrant for the burner phone records here didn’t provide subscriber information, but the text messages were linked to defendant. State v. Mackenzie, 2022 N.H. LEXIS 37 (Apr. 8, 2022).*
An alleged search warrant defect only makes a judgment voidable, not void. Debow v. State, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 158 (Apr. 8, 2022).*
A warrant for search of a Russian oligarch’s seized yacht under sanctions for the Ukraine invasion is denied as probably unnecessary. “The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure of property owned by a nonresident alien located in a foreign country. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 259 (1990). As such, Vekselberg, a foreign national, lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Target Property.” In re of The Motor Yacht Tango, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64251 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2022).
The officers being off on the suspect’s height was not “laughable” as the defense says. Mistakes on height are common. Moreover, “Officers’ reasonable mistakes can give rise to reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.” United States v. Lemons, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64825 (N.D.Iowa Feb. 17, 2022).*
Plaintiff was a lawyer fired for edits to a search warrant affidavit for the National Security Division of DoJ. That was a suit against the government, and it could not be brought against the individuals who otherwise were involved. Charles v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64897 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2022).*
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Phillips’ testimony that he observed a lane violation prior to initiating a traffic stop is not credible. The only evidence tending to support the commission of a traffic violation is Phillips’ alleged observation of a lane violation. However, the video shows that Phillips was never able to clearly articulate the nature of the lane violation to defendants, and he admitted at the suppression hearing that he was looking for a reason to pull over defendants’ vehicle before he allegedly observed a traffic violation.” Suppressed. United States v. Woods, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64272 (N.D.Okla. Apr. 6, 2022).
The officer was not reckless in failing to mention defendant’s alibi allegedly established by his work records which were not conclusive. United States v. Grimes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64510 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 7, 2022).*
Officers knew that defendant used three vehicles regularly, and all were involved in his alleged drug dealing. Therefore, all three could be searched on a warrant for premises. United States v. Miles, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64649 (N.D.Ind. Apr. 7, 2022).*
Failure to file the state search warrant papers with the state clerk under state law is not a Fourth Amendment violation. United States v. Baker, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9315 (6th Cir. Apr. 5, 2022).
The signed affidavit being incorporated into the search warrant, that shows that the affidavit was executed before the warrant. State v. Montella, 2022 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 156 (Apr. 7, 2022).
For Miranda, “The fact Mr. Pennington was interviewed during the execution of the search warrant does not – in itself – establish that the environment was coercive.” United States v. Pennington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64499 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 24, 2022).*
After witnessing suspicious movement, and observing white powder on the vehicle dashboard where defendant had been sitting, police had probable cause to arrest defendant on drug charges and consequently were justified in conducting a search of the defendant incident to that arrest. The drug dog’s alert to defendant’s buttocks area provided probable cause for a strip search; the State provided evidence of the dog’s reliability, including the dog and its trainer’s extensive training and the procedure followed during the dog’s search at the scene. Commonwealth v. Judge, 2022 Mass. App. LEXIS 28 (Apr. 7, 2022).
A displayed syringe during a traffic stop was probable cause for a search of the car. United States v. Cheatwood, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64021 (W.D.Va. Apr. 5, 2022).*
A police department bulletin board posting that defendant was armed and dangerous, coupled with his having a bulge in his waistband, was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Halverson-Weese, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9325 (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022).*
Rawstory: ‘Outrageous’: Judges slam FBI for not breaking down rich suspect’s front door to preserve ‘aesthetics’ by Matthew Chapman (argument video, too):
Continue readingA crime victim isn’t unreliable for informant hearsay just because of animosity toward the defendant. United States v. Collins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63999 (W.D.Ky. Feb. 7, 2022).
The trial court erred in finding defendant’s consent to a blood draw was involuntary. Just because he was getting medical treatment, too, the consent was still voluntary. State v. Croteau, 2022 ME 22 (Apr. 5, 2022).*
Reconsideration of denial of defendant’s motion to suppress is denied. “What’s more, while Curiel claims that his witnesses will contradict the officers’ stories, he does not explain how they would contradict the Government’s version of the events. He does not even explain who the witnesses would be. In short, Curiel is asking the Court to assume he has newly discovered evidence without explaining what his new evidence is, but nevertheless asks that the Court make that leap of faith because Curiel thinks his counsel mishandled the hearing.” United States v. Curiel, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63939 (D.Idaho Apr. 5, 2022).*
When firefighters entered defendant’s property in response to a fire call, they found a body. It was within the scope of the fire entry to call the police and medical examiner. “Thus, all that the firefighters observed was no longer private, but rather, was known to the government and appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy that prevented the government from acting on that knowledge. No warrant was required for the firefighters to pass along what they had observed to other government officials, including the police, nor was a warrant required to allow the police to stand in the same location as the firefighters given the limited time frame at issue.” Grangruth v. Commonwealth, 2022 Va. App. LEXIS 96 (April 5, 2022) (unpublished).
Defendant’s home detention agreement on parole included a waiver of his Fourth Amendment and state constitutional rights against search and seizure, and it was valid. State v. Fox, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 104 (Apr. 6, 2022).*
All defendant shows in his Franks challenge was that the officer should have had doubts about something, but not that he actually did, and that’s not enough of a showing. United States v. Collins, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63941 (W.D.Ky. Apr. 6, 2022).*
