Plaintiffs’ facial challenge to Los Angeles’ housing inspection ordinance fails because it isn’t unconstitutional in all applications. An administrative warrant provision is provided for. Garris v. City of Los Angeles, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).
“Here, Petitioner concedes that his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 (search) argument [in his 2255] ‘is fruitless’ and he wishes to withdraw his motion.” United States v. Yamada, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46237 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2020).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress because defendant lacked any standing at all in the car he was in. Johnson v. State, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 185 (Mar. 16, 2020).*
Defendant gave consent to Army CID at Ft. Lejeune to look in Facebook Messanger to investigate a theft where defendant was the alleged victim. The CID investigator went into the phone and searched 43,000 thumbnail images hoping to find child pornography, and he found one. The search of the phone violated the scope of consent, and it is suppressed. United States v. Crocker, 2020 CCA LEXIS 80 (N.-M. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 16, 2020).
An undocumented defendant was belatedly charged with reentry after deportation, a common case in that district. The delay was attributable to the government, and the defendant was granted bail but not released. “In short, the court finds that all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) weigh in favor of dismissal of the Indictment with prejudice.” United States v. Hernandez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45529 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020).*
The vehicle search was valid as an inventory. When a weapon was found in the console, it was valid under the automobile exception. State v. Fawcett, 2020-Ohio-1004, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 925 (5th Dist. Mar. 12, 2020).
The county’s insurance company was obligated to defend an arrestee’s false arrest case where it was alleged the arrest was without probable cause and ignored exculpatory evidence. The arrestee’s criminal case resulted in an acquittal in a bench trial. Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Cty., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8337 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).
The officer responded to a 911 call of a prowler in a neighborhood at 1:30 am. The only person out was defendant, dressed all in black which the officer found regularly happened in prowler calls. When confronted, defendant said he was out to buy cigarillos, but the nearest store was a 30 minute walk away. There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop. United States v. Hardy, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8330 (11th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).
Defendant claims defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress but doesn’t even allege a ground on which it could be granted. Denied. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-1007, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 935 (10th Dist. Mar. 17, 2020).*
Posted inIneffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on CA11: Prowler call at 1:30 am and def being only person out dressed all in black with improbable story was RS
The state fails to show the need for constant satellite based monitoring for defendant convicted sex offender who won’t even be released from prison until 2032. State v. Gordon, 2020 N.C. App. LEXIS 205 (Mar. 17, 2020):
Posted inGPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on NC: State fails to show need for satellite based monitoring of sex offender who won’t be released from prison until 2032
GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release violated the state constitution’s search and seizure provision. It was a great intrusion on privacy, and it did not serve the purposes of pretrial release: the return of the accused to court. Pretrial can’t be considered the same as probation because of the lack of a conviction. Commonwealth v. Norman, 484 Mass. 330 (Mar. 17, 2020):
Posted inReasonableness|Comments Off on MA: GPS monitoring as a condition of pretrial release unreasonable under state constitution; doesn’t serve proper state interests
The FBI agent applying for the search warrant had no Franks duty to tell the issuing magistrate that Torrential Downpour, the software they were using, had been challenged elsewhere where the challenges had failed. United States v. Schwier, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44769 (D.Alaska Mar. 16, 2020).
“Because of the public and co-defendants’ interest in a speedy trial, I directed the government in my February 11, 2020 Report Recommendation and Order to produce the search warrant for the cellular telephone, and for the defendant to file his motion for suppression by March 2, 2020, including any affidavit or declaration of standing. [242]. p. 11. To date, nothing has been filed. Therefore, I will assume that defendant does not intend to seek suppression of this evidence, and deny the motion as moot.” United States v. Washington, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45298 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Motion to suppress|Comments Off on D.Alaska: No Franks duty to tell issuing magistrate of failed challenges to same CP search software elsewhere
Swabbing defendant’s hands for GSR at the police station shortly after arrest was valid as a search incident. The detectives called the assistant state’s attorney on duty, and he advised that they didn’t need a warrant because of the ready disappearance of GSR. State v. Lentz, 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 32 (Mar. 16, 2020).
Defendants are accused of murdering a witness in a Medicaid fraud case in 2012 two days after his announced intention to plead guilty in a case involving them all. The district court had previously held the CSLI was unconstitutionally obtained back then and it was appealed. The government sought court orders for the information showing probable cause. This was all subject to the good faith exception under Krull. United States v. Age, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44784 (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2020).*
Ignoring the fact that “the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest,” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114 (1975), and reasonable bail, we see this:
Eyewitness report and identification was probable cause for arrest, so summary judgment was proper for the officer. Tortora v. City of New York, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8135 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2020).*
The court credits the officers’ testimony that they saw him throw what they thought could be a firearm back to the back seat, and one testified he heard it hit the floorboard. That justified a protective sweep of the car. United States v. Reed, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43646 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2020).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising the need for a search warrant for CSLI back in 2012-13. United States v. Shaw, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43680 (D. Kan. Mar. 13, 2020).*
Officer’s seeing syringes on the floor of defendant’s car just by looking was plain view and probable cause for search. Commonwealth v. Bumbarger, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 206 (Mar. 16, 2020).*
“Mr. Sealey’s motion to suppress, the court did not expressly determine that the stop was prolonged, but did find that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the vehicle contained drugs. We agree.” State v. Sealey, 2020-Ohio-987, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 913 (11th Dist. Mar. 16, 2020).*
The stop of the defendant’s car was reasonable for driving too slow too long in the left lane such that other cars were passing on the right. Once stopped, defendant’s story and his girlfriend’s didn’t match [enough; because she didn’t know the name of his friend they were visiting?]. There was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for a drug dog. United States v. Gomez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44670 (M.D. La. Mar. 13, 2020).*
The question of standing and alleged illegal search of defendant’s camper were moot. The camper was parked on an Albuquerque city street where it’s illegal to live in a camper. Given those facts, the camper would have otherwise been inventoried, and the gun would have been found then. United States v. Dunsworth, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44207 (D.N.M. Mar. 13, 2020).*
The officers were able to see jewelry and guns in defendant’s car, and there was probable cause for a search, and a search warrant was obtained. Pueblo v. Rosario, 2020 PR App. LEXIS 304 (Feb. 20, 2020).*
Expired tags was probable cause for defendant’s stop. United States v. Preston, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44168 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2020).*
The trial court erred in suppressing the search here because the officer who did it was a law enforcement officer under state law able to do so. On the merits, the officer was in position to make a plain view of his computer screen, and defendant admits that its incriminating nature was immediately apparent. State v. Hunt, 2020 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 25 (Mar. 13, 2020).*
The officer’s stepping in front of the defendant and saying “I just want to make sure you don’t got no guns” was a potentially seizure, although the question was close. The individual would not feel free to leave. Except defendant didn’t submit to authority under Hodari D. “Veney’s conduct—continuing to walk away from Officer Torres—indicates that he did not acknowledge that he was subject to the officer’s authority. Accordingly, because Veney has failed to show that he submitted to Officer Torres’s statement, ‘No. I just want to make sure you don’t got no guns,’ the second prong of the Hodari D. test is not satisfied.” The bulge in defendant’s clothing was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Veney, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44596 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2020).
It was speculation that if the defense had objected to authentication of cell phone records obtained by search warrant that the objection would have been sustained. No IAC on this ground. State v. Sierra, 305 Neb. 249 (Mar. 13, 2020).
Surreptitiously recorded video of the father allegedly abusing his children taken in the home would not be excluded in a family court case, even if the mother violated the state wiretapping act. In re Brooks, 2020 Colo. App. LEXIS 597 (Mar. 12, 2020).*
Playpen warrant sustained. United States v. Ammons, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8144 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020).*
Posted inCell phones, Ineffective assistance|Comments Off on NE: No IAC for not objecting to authentication of cell phone records obtained by SW
The smell of marijuana is probable cause to search in spite of legalization of hemp. United States v. Boggess, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44319 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 13, 2020):
A defense subpoena to the complaining witness seeking a cell phone dump was beyond the powers of the statute authorizing the subpoenas. A conditional writ of mandamus granted. In re State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 2192 (Tex. App. – El Paso Mar. 13, 2020).
The lack of findings on reasonable suspicion requires a remand. People v. Grimes, 2020 NY Slip Op 01818, 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1792 (4th Dept. Mar. 13, 2020).*
Defendant’s encounter on an interstate bus became repeatedly consensual as it progressed. United States v. Graves, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44022 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 3, 2020),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41726 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 10, 2020).*
The Intercept: A New York Police Officer Was Caught on Camera Apparently Planting Marijuana in a Car — for the Second Time by Alice Speri (“When a police officer in Staten Island was caught by his own body camera in the apparent act of planting marijuana in the car of a group of young men, the video evidence against him was strong enough to prompt prosecutors in the resulting case to throw out the marijuana charge in the middle of a pretrial hearing. A judge cut short his testimony, and prosecutors recommended he get a lawyer. But an internal review by the New York Police Department found that no misconduct had occurred.” He also claimed to smell marijuana in the car.)
Posted inPolice misconduct|Comments Off on The Intercept: A New York Police Officer Was Caught on Camera Apparently Planting Marijuana in a Car — for the Second Time
lawfare: Is ICE’s Use of a Maryland Facial Recognition Database Lawful? by Nathaniel Sobel (“The Washington Post reported recently that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have accessed, without obtaining judicial process, a Maryland facial recognition database that contains photographs of more than 275,000 undocumented immigrants who have obtained special driver’s licenses under a 2013 state law. ‘It’s a betrayal of immigrants’ trust for the [state] to turn around and let ICE run warrantless searches on their faces,’ Harrison Rudolph, a facial recognition expert at Georgetown’s Center on Privacy and Technology, told the Post.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on lawfare: Is ICE’s Use of a Maryland Facial Recognition Database Lawful?
EFF: Unchecked Smart Cities are Surveillance Cities. What We Need are Smart Enough Cities. By Jamie Williams (“Cities across the U.S. are forcing operators of shared bikes and scooters to use dangerous and privacy invasive APIs developed by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. These APIs—collectively called the ‘mobility data specification,’ or MDS—require that operators share granular location data on every trip taken. The location data that cities are demanding is incredibly sensitive and relates to the movements of real people. And some cities, like Los Angeles and soon Santa Monica and Washington, D.C., even require that the data be shared with a five-second delay—essentially in real-time.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on EFF: Unchecked Smart Cities are Surveillance Cities. What We Need are Smart Enough Cities.
WaPo: U.S. government, tech industry discussing ways to use smartphone location data to combat coronavirus by Tony Romm, Elizabeth Dwoskin, and Craig Timberg (“The U.S. government is in active talks with Facebook, Google and a wide array of tech companies and health experts about how they can use location data gleaned from Americans’ phones to combat the novel coronavirus, including tracking whether people are keeping one another at safe distances to stem the outbreak.”)
Posted inCell site location information|Comments Off on WaPo: U.S. government, tech industry discussing ways to use smartphone location data to combat coronavirus
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." —Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." —Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." —United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." —Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." —Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." —Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.” —United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
