Search of defendant’s cell phone as a probation search condition was reasonable. United States v. Canady, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169069 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017).
The officer did not have reasonable suspicion for a seizure of defendant’s vehicle because one of the owners had a suspended license and wasn’t there. “[T]he reasonable inference was that the driver of the vehicle was one of the registered owners, and there was no hunch or suspicion of criminal activity by the registered owners.” State v. Levell, 2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 1060 (Oct. 11, 2017).*
Cert. granted: United States v. Microsoft Corp., 17-2 (ScotusBlog)
Issue: Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.
This was inevitable, and it will be reversed. An American customer’s email can’t be hidden from a search warrant by claiming it’s in a server overseas.
Birchfield came down after the blood draw in this case. Defendant only pled the Fourth Amendment and did not cite the state constitution. There is no good faith exception to the Pennsylvania exclusionary rule, but there is to the federal, and defendant must lose on his claim. Commonwealth v. Updike, 2017 PA Super 325, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 797 (Oct. 13, 2017). In Commonwealth v. Carper, 2017 PA Super 326, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 798 (Oct. 13, 2017), however, the defendant did plead the state constitution, and he prevails.
WaPo: When is a Facebook ‘like’ a crime? by Ann E. Marimow:
The U.S. attorney’s office for D.C. told a judge Friday that the government has ‘little interest’ in obtaining the names of thousands of people who ‘liked’ the Facebook page of a political group that helped plan the Jan. 20 demonstrations, and agreed to narrow the timeline for photos the government is seeking as part of its investigation.
An order compelling persons to provide fingerprints to unlock Apple devices doesn’t violation the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. In re Search Warrant Application for [Name Redacted by the Court], 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169384 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2017):
Tax records were collected in an audit.”Failure to follow Internal Revenue manual does not mandate suppression of any evidence obtained in violation thereof.” United States v. Wright, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167300 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2017).
“[I]f an objectively reasonable police officer would have suspected that the windows were tinted in violation of New York law, probable cause can be found, regardless of the individual officer’s behavior or beliefs.” Drugs were then seen in plain view. United States v. Derrick, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169320 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 12, 2017).*
Two plainclothes officers jumped out of a car and approached to men who fled. The court finds the officers didn’t identify themselves. This wasn’t reasonable suspicion, and the court finds exclusion warranted for the police conduct. United States v. Bell, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166114 (S.D. N.Y. June 27, 2017):
Defendant got a suppression hearing to put on proof of a Franks violation, and he fails to show with any proof that the statements were reckless or material. Perhaps the court should have never ordered a hearing for a lack of an offer of proof. United States v. Pruitt, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165111 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2017):