Your smartphone is probably sending your precise location to companies right now. Their job is to turn your shopping trip or doctor’s visit into “Big Data” — another term for corporate intelligence. So far, the companies and individuals profiting from your everyday movements have mostly evaded scrutiny.
As Times Opinion continues reporting on a giant trove of mobile phone location data, the companies and people profiting from the privacy invasion are coming into focus.
So who, exactly, is watching, and why — and where is all that information going?
Posted inDigital privacy, Surveillance technology|Comments Off on NYTimes: Opinion: The Privacy Project || Smartphones Are Spies. Here’s Who They Report To.
Issue: Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.
Posted inSCOTUS, Seizure|Comments Off on SCOTUS cert grant: Torres v. Madrid: Is a person shot driving away from the police “seized”?
NYTimes: The Chilling Reality of Bias at the F.B.I. by Julian Sanchez (“Americans deserve a stronger assurance than “hope” that their Fourth Amendment rights are being respected.”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on NYTimes: The Chilling Reality of Bias at the F.B.I.
Posted inThird Party Doctrine|Comments Off on Brietbart: Pollak: House Democrats Violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in Impeachment Inquiry [No they didn’t.]
Defendant’s girlfriend was on probation, and she thus “consented” in advance to searches. She confessed during a probation visit that she used drugs, and they arrested her and then searched her and defendant’s place based on her probation search condition. Her arrest did not end the probation, and the search could occur. [The court doesn’t say it, but, essentially, he waived his reasonable expectation of privacy as to his living space by choosing to live with a probationer.] State v. Storer, 2019-Ohio-5166, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5231 (12th Dist. Dec. 16, 2019).
One of two officers at the scene of the stop testified at the suppression hearing, and he relied on information from the other to make the stop. This is the essence of the collective knowledge doctrine, and the other officer didn’t have to testify to justify the search. State v. Sidey, 2019-Ohio-5169, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5240 (3d Dist. Dec. 16, 2019).
Posted inCollective knowledge, Probation / Parole search|Comments Off on OH12: Probation and its search condition doesn’t end with probationer’s arrest; house could be searched later
General Flynn’s 2017 guilty plea waived his claim that there was allegedly Brady material that was favorable to his case that he was set up by the FBI. First of all, the guilty plea waives the Fourth Amendment claim, Brady or not. Second, even there wasn’t waiver, he can’t show that the alleged Brady violation was even material to guilt or innocence or punishment. United States v. Flynn, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216874 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on D.D.C.: Gen. Flynn’s guilty plea waived his speculative 4A/Brady claim; even if not waived, what he speculates wasn’t material
According to the state courts and statute, the smell of marijuana from a van was still probable cause in Maryland despite decriminalization. The search of the vehicle and a backpack within was thus lawful. United States v. Palacio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215114 (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2019).
Multiple controlled buys by the police from defendant’s house over a period of months showed the search warrant wasn’t stale. State v. Janssen, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 10824 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Dec. 12, 2019).
Posted inProbable cause, Staleness|Comments Off on D.Md.: Even with MJ decrim, smell of MJ from a vehicle is still PC by statute and state case law
The officer obtaining the search warrant was aware that there were two separate units in this dwelling, an upstairs and a downstairs. He also knew there were stairs and separate entrances. The upstairs was one color, and the downstairs another. It also developed that the officer had been there before with previous tenants and was aware it was two dwellings. The search warrant violated the state constitution for lack of particularity, and the trial court properly granted the motion to suppress, and court of appeals is reversed. State v. Rodrigues, 2019 Haw. LEXIS 342 (Dec. 13, 2019).
Posted inParticularity|Comments Off on HI: Officer was aware house had two living units; SW didn’t specify which and search suppressed
Defendant was a police officer who sought and was allowed a two hour lunch break. When he didn’t come back from lunch and he didn’t answer his radio or cell phone, the department dispatched another officer to his house. Outside, he found the patrol car running with the driver door open. The officer repeatedly knocked at the door and got no answer. Defendant’s dogs were barking at the knock. He entered and called out. No answer. The officer responding was concerned because defendant was in “a dark place” because of work issues. The dogs seemingly were leading him upstairs. Upstairs, he could hear his calling on the radio. He finally found defendant coming out a room disheveled. He told defendant to get his gear and come downstairs. While waiting, he found a broken light bulb. He looked around and saw no missing bulbs. He picked up a piece of the bulb and later it was tested for drugs, and it came back positive for methamphetamine. A search warrant was later obtained for the house. The entry was a legitimate emergency entry since defendant wasn’t responding to his radio and his patrol car was outside with the engine running, apparently for over two hours. The light bulb was in plain view, and the seizure of the piece was reasonable. State v. Komrosky, 2019 ND 300, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 299 (Dec. 12, 2019).
Posted inEmergency / exigency|Comments Off on ND: Emergency entry into on-duty police officer’s home was reasonable when he didn’t come back from extended lunch break and patrol car was outside running and he didn’t answer radio, phone, or door
In a search warrant for child pornography, the warrant does not have to attempt to be limited to the only devices that the officers think downloaded the images; all devices on the premises can be searched, following codefendant’s case, United States v. Laurezo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98367 (D.N.M. June 12, 2019). United States v. Adams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215204 (D.N.M. Dec. 12, 2019).
The fact the stop was in a high crime area wasn’t determinative, but it can be a contributing factor. In defendant’s stop there were furtive movements, and then his actions suggested he was armed: “Defendant ‘was evasive in his body language when [they] asked him about what was in his pocket’ and ‘he leaned forward as if to try to conceal it.’” The frisk with an open palm produced a gun that was validly seized. United States v. Murchison, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215288 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2019).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on D.N.M.: A SW for CP doesn’t need to be limited to only devices on the premises police think were used; all can be searched
Bloomberg Law: New Appeals Test for Medical Prescription Warrantless Searches by John Nancarrow (“A federal appeals court could rule anytime on whether law enforcement needs a warrant to access information on people’s prescription drug use from state databases—a case that’s pitted states against the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.”)
Posted inAdministrative search, Privileges|Comments Off on Bloomberg Law: New Appeals Test for Medical Prescription Warrantless Searches
Three men standing by a car wasn’t reasonable suspicion. The court analyzes each factor [not the “divide and conquer” attitude to be avoided] and finds it wanting and ultimately just a hunch. Then, the court considers the totality of circumstance, and the court can’t find that it adds up to reasonable suspicion. The officer just had too brief a view to have reasonable suspicion of men not doing anything wrong. “Here, by contrast, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it was unusual for a person or persons to be outside, nor is there any suggestion that it was unusual for a group of pedestrians to speak with the driver of a vehicle, as occurred here. As discussed above, the facts are too uncertain to convert what might have been innocent conduct into suspicious conduct based upon Kellar’s experience and his limited observation.” United States v. Haskins, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214832 (M.D. N.C. Dec. 12, 2019).*
The motions to suppress are denied for abandonment, search incident of his person, and a search warrant for defendant’s car. United States v. Carey, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214803 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2019).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on M.D.N.C.: The conduct of the men here was apparently innocent, and nothing made it even rise to RS [as low a standard as that is]
“Nevertheless, while the officers may have been mistaken in their belief that a search of the vehicle could be performed absent a custodial arrest, their flawed justification for ordering the occupants out of the vehicle was not prejudicial here. This is because the officers were permitted to order the passengers out of the vehicle as a matter of course under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Pennsylvania v. Mimms … (1977) and Maryland v. Wilson … (1997).” Then the patdown for weapons was reasonable. State v. Martin, 2019-Ohio-5147, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5220 (6th Dist. Dec. 13, 2019).*
“While on patrol, the detectives observed the red Prism in which Williams was a passenger and another vehicle engage in what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Detective Gray explained that the vehicles stopped facing in opposite directions, the drivers of the vehicles exchanged something quickly, and then the vehicles drove away. The evidence at trial supported a conclusion that, based on their experience, the detectives had a reasonable articulable suspicion that the occupants of both vehicles had engaged in criminal (drug) activity, warranting a stop of their vehicles.” Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-5142, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5217 (2d Dist. Dec. 13, 2019).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Reasonableness|Comments Off on OH6: Flawed justification for ordering def out of vehicle wasn’t prejudicial where Mimms allowed it in any event
Defendant was on a surveillance video 33 days before a search warrant was sought for the weapon since he was a felon. The warrant was not stale because people almost always keep firearms for a long time. Defendant’s challenge to potential lack of reliability of the time stamp fails under the standard of review accorded search warrants. “Here, where an automatically generated time stamp indicated the video was recorded on April 5, 2017, and where defendant has provided no grounds for questioning the time stamp’s reliability, invalidating the warrant for this reason would be a ‘hypertechnical’ rather than a ‘commonsense’ approach to probable cause.” United States v. Covington, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214642 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 13, 2019).
Defendant’s challenge to the probable cause for the search warrant fails because he doesn’t allege enough to show there wasn’t probable cause. Dayton v. City of Fairfield, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36925 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019).*
Posted inAdmissibility of evidence, Burden of pleading, Staleness|Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: On a video that’s integral to the PC, the reliability of the time stamp isn’t to be inquired into or it becomes a “hypertechnical” review
Reason: It’s Bill of Rights Day. Do Americans Still Care? by J.D. Tuccille (“The greatest threat to protections for our freedom may be people’s fear that people who disagree with them are exercising their rights.”)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Reason: It’s Bill of Rights Day. Do Americans Still Care?
Defendant’s car was being followed on a tip from the DEA that he was transporting drugs. When the officer pulled him over for a traffic offense, the officer noticed air freshener sprinkled on the floor of a clean and new rental car. Defendant’s nervousness never abated even after the officer told him he was just getting a warning. Defendant didn’t have his DL on him, and, on calling dispatch, the officer learned that defendant also had a criminal record for drugs. In his testimony, the officer also noted that the vehicle was registered to another which is an indicator to him in his training that the vehicle was likely being used to transport drugs. This, the court finds, is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Palomares, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215156 (D. Neb. Nov. 2, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214001 (D. Neb. Dec. 12, 2019).* Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on D.Neb.: Def was being tailed on a DEA tip; a traffic stop ripened to RS
"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.
