When the object of a search is clothing worn during a robbery, there is nexus to defendant’s home. United States v. Ross, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7701 (3d Cir. Mar. 17, 2021).
Defendant answered the officer’s knock on the door and the officer put a foot there to keep the door from shutting. Her new crime against the officer didn’t lead to its exclusion. State v. Wilson, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 231 (Mar. 17, 2021).
Defendant in a fraud offense pled that federal regulators should have been cited in the affidavit for search warrant so the issuing magistrate will appreciate that this might not be a fraud. That’s not the point of a search warrant. It’s not trial on the merits. United States v. Dingle, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49867 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 18, 2021):
Continue readingVICE: Cars Have Your Location. This Spy Firm Wants to Sell It to the U.S. Military by Joseph Cox (“15 billion car locations. Nearly any country on Earth. ‘The Ulysses Group’ is pitching a powerful surveillance technology to the U.S. government.”) [I persuaded a prosecutor once to look at the GPS on a rental car hauling meth to show that my client, the passenger, joined the road trip at PHX airport after the drugs were picked up in California. The meth was well hidden in the driver’s luggage. They dismissed as to my guy.]
In a child in need of services case, a well pled Franks violation can state a claim, but this one wasn’t. Grullon v. Administrator for Children’s Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49614 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (recognizing rule; citing Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen, 833 F. Supp. 2d 356, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)).
“It is undisputed that the police had probable cause to search Thompson’s vehicle. And his vehicle was parked in a public place for Fourth Amendment purposes, as Thompson does not claim that he had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the parking lot where his vehicle was located. Thus, the warrantless seizure and search of Thompson’s vehicle fell within the automobile exception.” United States v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7727 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2021).*
Failure to specify the crime under investigation in a Facebook warrant wasn’t fatal and did not require exclusion. United States v. Vogelbacher, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49359 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2021), adopted 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48228 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021):
Continue readingIn an opiod over prescribing case, a government violation of 42 C.F.R. Part 2 by the government only leads to a fine against the offending person. The exclusionary rule does not apply to regulation violations. United States v. Pompy, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48995 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2021):
Continue reading“The Government argues, and we agree, that the totality of the circumstances here support a finding that Agent Stauffiger had reasonable suspicion to justify stopping Nelson’s vehicle. First, our Court has recognized that proximity to the border is ‘a paramount factor in determining reasonable suspicion.’ While there is no bright line test with regard to this factor, we have held that ‘[t]he proximity element is satisfied … if the defendant’s car was first observed within 50 miles of the United States/Mexico border.’ It is undisputed that Nelson’s vehicle was first spotted at the Laredo-North checkpoint less than 50 miles from the border, here 29 miles, a factor weighing in favor of the reasonableness of Stauffiger’s suspicions.” Officer experience and nearness to the border count, too. United States v. Nelson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7539 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021).*
The anonymous tip here wasn’t sufficiently corroborated to make reasonable suspicion. The evidence supports the district court’s conclusion. United States v. Norbert, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7620 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2021) (2-1):
Continue readingDefendant had a duty to address the good faith exception in his motion and amended motion to suppress a search under a warrant, but he did not. United States v. Lyons, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48780 (W.D. La. Feb. 17, 2021).
There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for harassing customers on a convenience store parking lot, but the district court’s excessive force instruction was plain error. Winkler v. City of Phoenix, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7597 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2021).*
The dog sniff here was reasonable because the officer smelled marijuana during this traffic stop, and it did not extend the stop because it occurred while defendant was looking for his insurance papers. United States v. Boychief, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48776 (D. Idaho Mar. 12, 2021).*
Plaintiff appears to argue a Franks violation in issuance of his arrest warrant, but he failed to show one. Anokwuru v. City of Houston, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7619 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2021).*
The state proved a valid programmatic purpose for its driver’s license and DUI checkpoint. State v. Macke, 2021-NCCOA-70, 2021 N.C. App. LEXIS 61 (Mar. 16, 2021).
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging defendant’s stop because there was reasonable suspicion for it. State v. Grimes, 2021-Ohio-799, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 798 (5th Dist. Mar. 15, 2021).*
Petitioner’s 2255 claims defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress, but he doesn’t articulate how or what. Without a showing that it would have been meritorious, it fails on its face. United States v. Sanchez-Delgado, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48585 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2021).*
The search warrant was particular under the Fourth Amendment, and the affidavit wasn’t bare bones. United States v. Perea, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7562 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2021).*
An officer’s pulling in front of a motorcycle eluding police at 105 mph was not a Fourth Amendment violation. “Accordingly, even if Duvall pulled his car over in a manner likely to cause the collision and serious injury or death, that use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment. ‘A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.’ [Scott v. Harris,] at 373.” Lankford v. Plumerville, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47647 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 15, 2021).
Plaintiff sufficiently pleads a Fourth Amendment violation for a prison visitor strip search that she was groped and the search was unjustified at its inception. Glover v. Rivas, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47786 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2021).
The Facebook warrant was kind of overbroad but was determined valid as a whole. “So as in Purcell, ‘the structure of the warrant rendered the specification of the suspected offense, while constitutionally indispensable, functionally unnecessary.’ Purcell, 967 F.3d at 183.” United States v. Vogelbacher, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48228 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 15, 2021).
The warrant here was more particular than the one in Groh when read as a whole, and it is sustained. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Maccani, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48442 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 12, 2021).*
As to the Fourth: “This Court finds that the search conducted herein pursuant to the ERPO statute was reasonable. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, the petitioner provided a sworn statement as to the basis for his belief that respondent was recently hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for expressing suicidal ideations. Respondent falsely denied having any firearms; however, he did own and possess a firearm and had recently attempted to purchase another firearm. These sworn statements considered along with all the pleadings, supporting papers, and evidence submitted, were sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Furthermore, in circumstances where an individual is deemed to pose an extreme risk due to likelihood of substantial harm to self or others, a special needs exception also exists to promote a governmental interest of regulating conduct and access to firearms of these individuals. Thus, respondent’s argument that the ERPO statute violates the Fourth Amendment also fails.” Anonymous Detective at Westchester County Police v A.A., 2021 NY Slip Op 21053, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1001 (Westchester Co. Feb. 10, 2021).
“Under these circumstances, I find the 911 call contained sufficient indicia of reliability to support Carpenter’s belief in the facts alleged by the caller. Thus, Carpenter was justified in believing there was a man named Dominic, who owned a gun, and was attempting to steal the caller’s car at the address provided, all of which strongly supports a reasonable belief that the individual he encountered minutes later was engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Wright, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47583 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2021).*
“In isolation, not all of these facts would necessarily justify a Terry stop. But the court finds that in the aggregate they gave rise to the officers’ reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.” Moreover, “the officers reasonably relied in objective good faith on the computer records showing Defendant’s outstanding warrants. The court concludes that the officers’ conduct was not ‘sufficiently deliberate’ that exclusion could meaningfully deter it, and was not ‘culpable’ in any sense that would warrant deterrence in the first place. See Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 702.” United States v. Walker, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47011 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021).*
The district court credited the dog handler that the dog alerted. “To the extent that Goldberg brings a legal challenge, this court has held that an alert, as opposed to a final indication, is sufficient to establish probable cause.” United States v. Goldberg, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7431 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021).
Appellant “has not made a prima facie showing, even if Border Patrol agents failed to question her about alienage or illegal entry, that her arrest near the border was an egregious violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.” Gonzalez-Ponce v. Garland, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7413 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2021).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not calling defendant to testify at the suppression hearing to avoid potential further admissions of guilt [What about Simmons v. United States and its “immunity”?], and defense counsel was confident standing was shown. Moreover, the trial court found defense counsel credible that defendant did not want to testify. Houghtaling v. Comm’r of Corr., 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 81 (Mar. 16, 2021). Caution: If the issue is standing, it might be necessary to call the defendant to establish it.
Defendant had guest standing to object to the government’s search of the premises, but the householder consented. United States v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47168 (W.D. La. Feb. 2, 2021).*
The court finds Franks applies to alleged non-existent warrants, but defendant’s offer of proof fails anyway. United States v. Dixon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46844 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2021).*
The trial court has no duty to sua sponte suppress when the defense makes no objection. It also isn’t plain error. Gardner v. Commonwealth, 2021 Ky. App. LEXIS 23 (Mar. 12, 2021) (unpublished):
Continue readingThis parole search wasn’t shown to be unreasonable. “As discussed in the above cited case law, there is a significant government interest in combating recidivism and thwarting illegal drug activity by parolees. Defendant has failed to point to any direct or strong circumstantial evidence in the record indicating circumstances that would render the search unreasonable in a constitutional sense.” United States v. Edmiston, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45861 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2021). [This is a warrantless search, so why isn’t the burden on the government to prove it reasonable?]
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress search of his garage. The garage and things on the curtilage are covered for a warrant for the “residence.” Mahan v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46614 (E.D. La. Mar. 12, 2021).*
The officer’s smelling and then seeing marijuana justified an automobile exception search of defendant’s car. State v. Brown, 2021-Ohio-753, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 775 (6th Dist. Mar. 12, 2021).*
Defendant’s traffic stop was admittedly pretextual to investigate a drug offense, and the officers had reasonable suspicion on collective knowledge to justify the stop. United States v. Tuschoff, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47130 (D. Idaho Mar. 10, 2021).
The CI was defendant’s wife, and that provided probable cause. United States v. Austin, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 7316 (1st Cir. Mar. 12, 2021).*
Petitioner’s 2254 Fourth Amendment claim was based on the fact the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered only the state constitution. It didn’t because it relied on Terry. Moreover, the state constitution provides more protection than the Fourth Amendment, and it still found the search reasonable. Massie v. Medeiros, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46659 (D. Mass. Mar. 11, 2021).*
