Defendant’s habeas claim that the application for the GPS tracking warrant was based on false information was barred by Stone v. Powell. Neil v. Forshey, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34461 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2020).*
Defendant’s successive habeas petition raises the same Fourth Amendment claim that has already been rejected, and this is too and must be dismissed. In re Hammond, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34540 (11th Cir. Nov. 3, 2020).*
The warrantless seizure of defendant’s cell phone was reasonable. The officers didn’t need to get a search warrant before taking it off his person. State v. Deem, 2020 W. Va. LEXIS 706 (Oct. 20, 2020).
The officer’s prior knowledge of suspect’s description and dress at the time of the crime made the incriminating nature of defendant’s sneakers immediately apparent. United States v. Thomas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203456 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2020).*
Defendants were on three years community control after a conviction for animal abuse at a shelter. A suspicionless probation search of the shelter was permitted. State v. Brown, 2020-Ohio-5140, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3981 (11th Dist. Nov. 2, 2020).*
Defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing for Franks purposes that the officer recklessly disregarded the fact there could be two residential units in the building he was seeking the search warrant for. He reviewed property records and Google maps and still didn’t see that it was a multi-unit dwelling. The exclusionary rule should not apply to his efforts. The warrant also did not violate particularity because warrant sought to search the entire dwelling. Once the officer realized there were two dwelling units, the search was limited to the proper one. Exclusion is inappropriate here, and the good faith exception also applies. United States v. Bernard, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203826 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2020):
Continue readingThe driver consented to a search of the car defendant was a passenger in. The passenger’s purse was reasonably believed to be the driver’s for consent purposes, even though it was on her side. When it was opened and her ID was found, the drugs inside were in plain view. State v. Andera, 307 Neb. 686 (Oct. 30, 2020).
Defendants’ concessions during their suppression hearing about what should be suppressed constituted waiver when they changed their argument on appeal. United States v. Garcia, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34402 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2020).
Defendant’s live-in girlfriend made a domestic violence call and invited the police in. Her consent entry and then protective sweep revealed marijuana. A search warrant was obtained, and it was valid. The mistake that the marijuana was found on the kitchen table (where it had been moved to when found in the bedroom) wasn’t material. United States v. Gray, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34400 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2020).*
Defendant denied he lived in the house where the police conducted a probation search. His standing was challenged, but the merits were decided. They suspected him of being involved in drug dealing and went to talk to him and his obvious lies to them became reasonable suspicion (citing cases). United States v. Calhoun, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34401 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2020):
Continue readingThis anonymous tip fails under Navarette because it permits stops on no reliable information at all. Moreover, a Terry stop cannot be used to investigate a completed misdemeanor (noting the circuits to the contrary). United States v. Beasley, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203273 (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2020):
Continue readingThe court finds defendant abandoned his fanny pack which he said was strapped over his chest and fell off during flight from the police. He testified he didn’t intentionally drop the fanny pack, and it must have slipped off while running. United States v. Leary, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202609 (D. Mass. Oct. 30, 2020).
An alleged violation of Indiana statute requiring a uniformed officer for an arrest on the street has no relevance at all in a federal prosecution. United States v. Price, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202739 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2020).*
There was probable cause to credit the informant hearsay. A track record of reliability is important, but lack of one alone doesn’t make the CI unreliable. “The affidavit to the search warrant satisfied the two-part Aguilar test and there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. The circuit court therefore erred in granting the motion to suppress.” State v. Clowe, 2020 Haw. App. LEXIS 373 (Oct. 30, 2020) (unpublished).*
The search warrant for child pornography here failed to describe the image and was conclusory. In addition, the officer didn’t state anything about his training in the area to identify child pornography. Goesel v. State, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 15413 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 30, 2020).
Defendant’s post-conviction claim that he would have pursued a motion to suppress and then gone to trial is belied by the fact the government reduced his exposure by the plea offer. He can’t show prejudice. Moreover, he admits that the government’s case would still be strong. Monetti v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202661 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2020).*
Similar is State v. Wiggins, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2861 (Oct. 30, 2020), where defense counsel didn’t cause defendant to plead guilty. “Considering the nature of Defendant’s arrest, and the evidence against the Defendant, counsel took professionally reasonable steps in recommending a plea agreement.”
“Here, Officer Guagliardo heard multiple shots coming from an apartment complex and seconds later saw Oliver, and only Oliver, fleeing the area. When instructed to stop, Oliver ran faster. Officer Guagliardo heard screams coming from the complex. Based on the specific and articulable facts, in conjunction with the inferences drawn from the circumstances, it was reasonable for Officer Guagliardo to infer that a crime had been committed and that Oliver may have been involved.” Once safety concerns were dispelled, however, defendant should have been unhandcuffed and this was an arrest without probable cause. People v. Oliver, 2020 COA 150, 2020 Colo. App. LEXIS 1818 (Oct. 29, 2020).
“Petitioner’s presentation of his claim to the state courts suffices to preclude review of the claim in a habeas corpus petition.” Brown v. Smith, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202301 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2020).*
The officers delayed the stop to get the drug dog to the scene. The court of appeals erred, however, in not determining reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 2020 Ky. LEXIS 394 (Oct. 29, 2020):
Continue readingA pipe logically and usually used for smoking pot was seized in plain view because its incriminating nature was immediately apparent. The fact it could be used for legal substances doesn’t detract from that. United States v. Runner, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201400 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 28, 2020).
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash left out for collection at the side of the road. Aside from the trash pull, there was probable cause for issuance of this search warrant. Following Tenth Circuit precedent, the search was federal in character because, although it was issued by a state judge to a state officer, the presence of DEA officers made it “federal in character.” Any violation of Rule 41 here, however, is not a constitutional violation. Even if there was a Rule 41 violation, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Nelson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201348 (D. Kan. Oct. 29, 2020).*
“Upon en banc consideration, we uphold the conclusion reached in Franklin, and reiterate that the heightened standard set forth in Farris does not apply to searches conducted within the passenger compartment of a vehicle. Consistent with the confines of Farris, we hold that when an officer detects an odor of marijuana from a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop, the officer has probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the interior of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search, including behind a visibly displaced panel that is located within the vehicle’s passenger compartment. If, during the search, the officer discovers marijuana or other indicia of criminal activity in the vehicle, the officer possesses additional probable cause to search other areas of the vehicle and its contents that could contain items for which officers have probable cause to search.” State v. Taylor, 2020-Ohio-5079, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3931 (8th Dist. Oct. 29, 2020).
Defendant’s roof was not a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy despite the fact it was on the curtilage (decided in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Davis v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201562 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2020):
Continue reading“R.F. appeals the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence. Because we conclude appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes where the deputy used a spotlight and a flashlight to illuminate his approach of appellant, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.” R.F. v. State, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 15351 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 28, 2020).
Pleading guilty after the suppression hearing but before decision is a waiver of the motion. People v. Burks, 2020 NY Slip Op 06172, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6382 (3d Dept. Oct. 29, 2020).*
“Here, the search warrant, which authorized a search of the defendant’s home for a gun, was predicated on a confidential informant’s personal observation of the defendant holding a gun outside his home, then going inside his home, and returning outside without it.” That’s probable cause. People v. Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 06157, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6311 (2d Dept. Oct. 28, 2020).*
This geofence warrant is issued with probable cause and it is particular because it is so limited in time and scope. In re Search Warrant Application for Geofence Location Data Stored at Google Concerning an Arson Investigation, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201248 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2020):
Continue readingWaPo: Justice Department to allow local police to wear body cameras on federal task forces (“But federal officers and agents in FBI, ATF, DEA and U.S. Marshals still will not wear cameras”)
The ability to get an art. 38.23 exclusionary rule instruction for the jury depends on someone else’s wrongdoing, and not on the defendant’s own. It doesn’t apply to resisting arrest. Aguirre v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524 (Tex. App. – Waco Oct. 28, 2020).*
The officer had justification for stopping defendant for speeding by pacing defendant’s vehicle. Jamsa v. State, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 1044 (Oct. 28, 2020).*
There was probable cause for the warrant. Jaudon v. Sasser, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33942 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020).*
Defendant was charged with child pornography after his computer system password was linked to it. A state grand jury declined to indict him. He sued under § 1983 in state court, and it was removed to federal court. “Without providing any factual detail in the amended complaint, Xie claimed that his arrest lacked probable cause and that an unreasonable search was conducted when he was arrested. In his response to the motion to dismiss, Xie offers nothing more than the speculation that Dunn, Gonzalez, Haydon, and King knew that the prosecution for child pornography lacked probable cause.” Dismissed. Keping Xie v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200418 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199913 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2020).*
Plaintiff’s parole officers conducted valid searches. Civil claims dismissed. Corradi v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200642 (D. N.J. Oct. 28, 2020).*
The officers entered a constitutionally protected area of defendant’s property for a trash seizure. The court also declines to adopt a “trash exception” to curtilage that trash expected to be picked up later is not protected. United States v. Gregory, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200593 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 28, 2020):
Continue reading
