The stop was justified by a seatbelt violation, but defendant didn’t have standing because the car was stolen. United States v. Joseph, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123893 (M.D. La. Aug. 7, 2017).
The landing in front of an apartment is the same as curtilage. The officer’s presence there was justified by the emergency doctrine because of an alleged domestic dispute. United States v. Pelayo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124146 (D. Nev. June 13, 2017),* reconsideration denied, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123488 (D. Nev. July 25, 2017).*
The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of their house. The information possessed by the officers at the time of the search, including a conclusory statement from a confidential informant and an unsuccessful attempt at a controlled buy at the home, was insufficient to establish that the female defendant, who was on probation, was engaged in illegal drug-related activity at the home. Moreover, there was no reasonable suspicion to support the search as a probation search, because the officers admitted they received vague information that defendants might be involved in drug activity and the officers were unsuccessful in an attempt to buy drugs. State v. Hamm, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 711 (Aug. 11, 2017).
ZDNet: Trump administration demands data on over a million visitors to anti-Trump site by Zack Whittaker
The EFF, representing Dreamhost in the case, called the Justice Dept’s order ‘unconstitutional’.
ACLU: Massive Search Warrant Targets Anti-Trump Website in Clear Threat to the Constitution by Brett Max Kaufman
Search warrant? What’s the crime?
Application for a COA on a 2255 appeal for failing to timely file a motion to suppress is denied. Arrest warrants don’t get stale like search warrants, and such a staleness argument would fail. Also, the record shows that the motion to suppress would have failed because the protective sweep was valid and the search warrant was with probable cause. Therefore, no prejudice, and reasonable jurists could not disagree. Guadarrama v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14975 (6th Cir. Feb. 13, 2017) (order).
In a DUI case, the state did not show exigent circumstances to enter defendant’s home to take him into custody to then have to seek a search warrant for his blood anyway. State v. Ritz, 361 Ore. 781, 2017 Ore. LEXIS 549 (Aug. 10, 2017), reversing 270 Ore. App. 88, 347 P.3d 1052 (2015):
The district court did not err in finding the inevitable discovery doctrine applied where officers responded to an assault call and saw defendant, believed to be a felon, with a gun. It was inevitable that police would have lawfully discovered his name. United States v. McDaniel, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14787 (4th Cir. Aug. 10, 2017).*
The CI’s statement was probable cause on the totality, and it was corroborated. “The known facts and circumstances here support a finding of probable cause. Coleman’s description of the activities at Johnson’s condo was detailed and based on firsthand knowledge. He specified that he purchased 150-200 grams of heroin from Johnson on a weekly basis. He described to agents the manner in which he paid for the heroin and how much it cost. He told agents the location where he purchased the heroin, and he specified the unit number of the condo. He told agents that his most recent purchase of 200 grams of heroin at Johnson’s condo was on April 10, 2011, merely two days before agents obtained and executed a search warrant at the condo.” United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14860 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017).*
“As previously noted in [the first appeal of this case,] Tpr. Sharbono’s testimony provided the articulable facts that raised his suspicions of other illegal activity: (1) Manning had no driver’s license or paperwork for the vehicle he was driving; (2) upon questioning, Manning related a suspicious account regarding his travel; (3) a criminal background check revealed Manning’s extensive criminal history; (4) Manning did not know his passenger’s last name; and, (5) Manning’s passenger also had a criminal record.” That was reasonable suspicion. State v. Manning, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 1455 (La.App. 2 Cir. Aug. 9, 2017).*
The motion for new trial or acquittal is denied. One ground was suppression of evidence, and it had already been determined there was probable cause for the search before the four month trial, and the court hasn’t seen anything that changes the ruling. United States v. Chester, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124914 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2017).*
The Playpen warrant is sustained. The R&R recommending granting the motion predates United States v. Horton, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13333 (8th Cir. July 24, 2017), which upheld Playpen warrants. United States v. Carlson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124452 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2017).*
It is too easy for an email warrant to be a general warrant because there has to be an articulation of what the government is looking for. Moreover, all the emails may be seized so they can be searched looking for ones that are pertinent to the investigation. Here, the scope of the search was limited by enumerated crimes and a starting time for the emails. Finally, the government has a duty to protect against privileged emails being read by the search team. United States v. Patel, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125072 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017):