Search warrant papers are discoverable to the defense and the unredacted parts are public records that must be disclosed. “The state asks us to prevent the disclosure of information that it had redacted from search warrants and warrant applications related to this pending criminal prosecution. We deny the petition and require an unredacted disclosure of the search warrants and applications to the defendant. Due process mandates it.” State v. Wooten, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 17002 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 29, 2018).
The officer accurately reported what information he received, and that’s no basis for a Franks claim. The search warrants were for that, not just arrest warrants. United States v. Brown, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203266 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2018).*
ABAJ: How retaliatory-arrest claims relate to the First and Fourth Amendments by Erwin Chemerinsky:
Maybe the third time will be the charm, and the Supreme Court will finally decide an important issue in civil rights litigation: Does the existence of probable cause for an arrest preclude a First Amendment claim that government officers acted impermissibly in retaliation against speech? In Nieves v. Bartlett, argued on Nov. 26, the court returns to this issue, which it twice before ducked.
The government unlawfully placed a GPS device on defendant’s car and two days later stopped him. It argued in the district court a lack of standing, which prevailed there, and then conceded they were wrong on appeal. The constitutional violation was flagrant. Attenuation of a traffic stop is argued and rejected as having only slight value for the government. United States v. Terry, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33617 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018). (Criticized some in Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy: Installing GPS Devices, Getting Warrants, and the Exclusionary Rule, An interesting new decision from the Fourth Circuit — although I’m not sure it’s right.
Pro se plaintiffs just don’t seem to get this: “The Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments lack money-mandating provisions, thereby precluding this court’s jurisdiction. Insofar as the Fourth Amendment protects against searches and seizures, it is not money mandating.” Darling v. United States, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1592 (Nov. 30, 2018).
The state searched defendant’s jail cell while he was in pretrial detention and seized attorney-client privileged information. The state has the burden of proving that it did not affect the case against him, and the case is remanded for further hearings on that and whether the DA’s office should be disqualified. State v. Robins, 2018 Ida. LEXIS 212 (Nov. 30, 2018) (substitute opinion for opinion of August 2, 2018):
A search waiver condition “without a warrant and without probable cause” still requires reasonable suspicion. Jarman v. State, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 445 (Nov. 30, 2018).
Window tinting that covered the back window brake light was a traffic violation justifying the stop. United States v. Meadows, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201565 (D. Utah Nov. 27, 2018).*
The district court credited that defendant was speeding, and the officer then learned the person who he’d stopped was a major player in the Ohio heroin market. The stop led to a valid search warrant for defendant’s house issued on probable cause. United States v. Davis, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33468 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018).*
Defendant’s reasonable detention pre-dog sniff was at a gas station and not on the side of the road. That doesn’t change the constitutional calculus. State v. Ferguson, 301 Neb. 697 (Nov. 30, 2018).
“Here, the Court finds the warrant described with sufficient particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The area to be searched was relatively small—a Honda automobile (not an entire house)—and the things to be seized were those items related to ‘armed robberies or assaults.’ While the warrant contains a boilerplate list of items to be seized, it also specifies a ‘black hoodie with a possible bullet hole, Smith and Wesson 9mm handgun black and silver in color (unknown serial number), financial documents or personal information belonging to the following victims (June Thomas Marley, Hazel Burton and Mark Greulach), a black in color wallet, dark in color bandana/do-rag, gray sweatshirt, cash money, tennis shoes with reflective surface, a Verizon flip cell phone, women’s purse and a dark semi-automatic handgun.’ In short, the warrant satisfies the particularity requirement.” United States v. Hayes, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203302 (D. S.C. Nov. 30, 2018).
Paul Ohm, The Many Revolutions of Carpenter, 32 Harv. J.L. & Tech. ___ (2O019) (forthcoming). Abstract:
Defendant’s trial objection was based on Miranda and the Fifth Amendment. No Fourth Amendment claim was made so it is waived and post trial briefing is too late. United States v. Horton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201898 (E.D. N.C. Nov. 29, 2018).
Reasonable suspicion for a patdown: “(1) the location of the stopped vehicle was near a high-crime area; (2) the stop was conducted in the early morning hours after over-night surveillance of a location where “short-term” drug trafficking activity was prevalent and where suspicious activity of an over-night move was taking place; (3) Officer Marah knew that Defendant Yackel had been involved with drug sales and assault charges in the past; (4) the passenger in the vehicle (Olson) was a person wanted on several warrants and who was “highly involved in criminal activity, particularly stolen vehicles and narcotics” …; (5) the vehicle was registered to someone else; and (6) when Officer Marah approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, Yackel was ‘breathing very heavy, his hands were shaking and … [he] was visibly nervous.’” United States v. Yackel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201991 (D. Minn. Nov. 29, 2018).*
Police get a 911 call that a man was yelling and screaming at and threatening somebody, and they come to the house. At the door, defendant admits that he was because he was stressed out about “issues.” He also admitted that there was another person inside. Entry was justified under the emergency exception. The district court’s denial of a hearing on the voluntariness of consent is moot. United States v. Guillen, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33482 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018).*
The officer conducting a traffic stop and a report from other officers that defendant was likely carrying methamphetamine, and it was based on fairly detailed information. When a traffic stop occurred, the officer was concerned that the occupants were “too stiff” to conceal their true emotions. There was reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff. United States v. Ballard, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202286 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2018).*
No search issue here; just a cautionary tale for police:
A female CI came in for a controlled buy on defendant. He feared she was wired and made her strip to her underwear, and she did. Then he told her to take her underwear off, and he placed his fingers in her vagina looking for a recorder, apparently. He scratched her vagina, and she bled. She reported it back to the police, and he was charged with rape on the CI. This appeal is a on a bail issue. Johnson v. State, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 443 (Nov. 29, 2018).*