North Carolina law requires reasonable suspicion for a supervision search, and here it was completely lacking. The motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Fuller, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202240 (E.D. N.C. Oct. 1, 2019).*
State statute discusses concealed carry, and the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant wasn’t concealing the gun he could see. People v. Balark, 2019 IL App (1st) 171626, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 902 (Nov. 20, 2019).*
The stop was justified because the officers ran the LPN and found it was uninsured. After the stop, the court finds that defendants consented to a search of the car. United States v. Lawrence, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201984 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2019).*
Posted inProbable cause, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: NC law requires RS for a supervision search, and here it’s lacking
BIA erred by denying petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence of his alleged alienage. He made out a prima facie case of an egregious violation of his constitutional rights where the evidence tended to show a racial animus in the planning and execution of the raid during which he was arrested, and thus supported the inference that his arrest was likewise race-based. The sheer paucity of evidence supporting a finding of probable cause buttressed the conclusion that the arrest was racially motivated. Rodriguez v. Barr, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34754 (2d Cir. Nov. 21, 2019).
Defendant’s admission that he had a gun only came when the unreasonable frisk began. Motion to suppress both granted. United States v. White, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201139 (E.D. Micn. Nov. 20, 2019).*
Posted inImmigration arrests, Pretext, Stop and frisk|Comments Off on CA2: BIA erred in not suppressing; a prima facie case of an egregious violation of the 4A was shown because it was apparently race based stop and there was virtually no PC
2255 claim that officer perjured himself during suppression hearing was already raised there and on appeal and barred here. United States v. Brown, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201044 (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2019).*
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing whether defendant’s traffic stop was valid since defendant pled guilty to the traffic ticket. Richardson v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202390 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 20, 2019).*
2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing his suppression motion better doesn’t state a ground for relief. The Fourth Amendment claim was raised and lost already and no additional grounds are shown that would change the outcome. United States v. Session, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201344 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 11, 2019).*
Defendant’s 2255 claims that the traffic stop was illegal and counsel was ineffective for not challenging it. It’s undisputed that he was speeding, and the stop was justified, despite his claim of pretext. United States v. Munoz, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201942 (W.D. La. Nov. 19, 2019).*
Defendant challenged one sentence in the affidavit as a Franks violation, but it doesn’t even appear to be false. Moreover, even if that sentence were stricken, there still would be probable cause, and he fails in his burden of proof. United States v. Reddix, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201799 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2019).*
Plaintiff claims he was grabbed from his home and made to testify by video to the military commission. Even if he can state a claim, qualified immunity protects those involved because its not clearly established this was unreasonable. Gill v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202008 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2019).*
“[T]he Court concludes that the warrant was sufficiently particularized because it used appropriate words of incorporation and the affidavit accompanied the warrant.” Also, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Cooper, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201514 (W.D. N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Particularity, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Even if the one challenged sentence in the SW affidavit was stricken under Franks, PC would still exist
Warrantless forensic searches of defendant’s devices in May of 2015 lacked the required nexus to the recognized historic rationales justifying the border search exception to the warrant requirement. Officers had probable cause to suspect that defendant had previously committed grave domestic crimes, but these suspicions were entirely unmoored from the sovereign interests applicable to the border search exception. Where a search at the border was so intrusive as to require some level of individualized suspicion, the object of that suspicion had to bear some nexus to the purposes of the border search exception in order for the exception to apply. Therefore, warrantless, nonroutine forensic searches violated the Fourth Amendment. With, however, the uniform precedent that permitted warrantless searches at the border in May 2015, the good faith exception applied. United States v. Aigbekaen, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34659 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2019).
Yes, there were inconsistencies in the informant hearsay, but the defendant doesn’t help the court in what that means. “Thus, Defendant’s hearsay attacks fail to draw the court’s attention to any problem in the magistrate judges’ analysis.” There was double hearsay in the affidavit, but both parts were shown to be reliable and credible enough for a search warrant to issue based on apparent inferences. As to the search for drugs, however, probable cause was lacking and the good faith exception did not apply. The warrant thus was overbroad and that which doesn’t qualify as plain view is suppressed. United States v. Dyer, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201798 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inBurden of proof, Informant hearsay|Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: To make an effective attack on a SW affidavit, explain yourself and don’t leave it to the court to try to do it for you
There was probable cause to arrest plaintiff, a member of Bikers for Christ, for interfering with a law enforcement officer when the officer was attempting to write a ticket for another biker. Thus, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. Stubbs v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34532 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2019)*: Continue reading →
Posted inProbable cause|Comments Off on CA9: PC for arrest of ptf for interfering with a LEO arresting another
The Washington Privacy Act prohibiting unwarned recordings does not apply to law enforcement bodycams and dash cams. “Conversations with uniformed, on-duty law enforcement officers are typically not private conversations.” State v. Clayton, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2930 (Nov. 19, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable expectation of privacy|Comments Off on WA: Washington Privacy Act prohibiting unwarned recordings does not apply to law enforcement bodycams and dash cams
WaPo: Police hid a tracking device on a suspect’s car — then charged him with theft for removing it by Brittany Shammas (“For about a week in summer 2018, Indiana authorities monitored a suspected drug dealer’s movements using a GPS tracking device they had surreptitiously placed on his Ford Expedition. One night, the tracker went dark. A Warrick County sheriff’s deputy went to investigate and discovered that the device was gone. In a move that appeared to perplex Indiana Supreme Court justices reviewing the case, the alleged dealer — a Boonville, Ind., man named Derek Heuring — was charged with theft for taking it off. The case raises questions about both private and government surveillance, potentially having ramifications beyond Heuring and his legal situation.”)
“The totality of the circumstances here indicate consent, not mere acquiescence by Defendant. Regarding Defendant’s relevant characteristics, he is an adult, and there is no reason to think this was his first encounter with law enforcement, given that he is alleged to have a prior felony conviction. There is no specific information regarding his intelligence or education to weigh. As to whether he understood his constitutional rights and whether he knew he had the right to refuse consent, the Court notes that when Defendant went to his truck to look for his identification, he did not comply with Hodge’s request that he ‘[h]old up.’ This tends to indicate both that Defendant knew he had not been seized and that he knew he did not have to do what Hodge asked of him.” United States v. Gyurnek, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200733 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 19, 2019).*
Posted inConsent|Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Consent shown on the totality that def didn’t have to cooperate
The impoundment of defendant’s car wasn’t justified by either the community caretaking function or need for inventory. Whether the vehicle was even involved in a crime was inconclusive at best. United States v. Trujillo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201024 (D. N.M. Nov. 20, 2019).*
Defendant’s stop was justified because the officer believed he saw the butt of a gun in his waistband and that defendant was a felon. United States v. Brown, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200996 (D.Mass. Nov. 20, 2019).*
The trial court denied the motion to suppress because the entry was by exigent circumstances. The trial testimony confirms it. State v. Bolden, 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1823 (Nov. 19, 2019).*
The traffic stop was justified under state law, and, during the stop and getting the driver’s license, the officer could smell marijuana and that was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Cheeks, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34499 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2019).*
On the totality of circumstances, defendant’s conduct on a city street was indicative he was going from house to house to see if he could burglarize them, and that was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Churchill, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34467 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2019).*
The state’s seeking the passcode to unencrypt a computer hard drive violates the Fifth Amendment. Commonwealth v. Davis, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 6463 (Nov. 20, 2019): Continue reading →
Posted inComputer and cloud searches, Privileges|Comments Off on PA: State’s seeking the passcode to unencrypt a computer hard drive violates the 5A
“With that in mind, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. As indicated above, we accept for purposes of this appeal that Gill falsified information in the affidavits supporting his arrest warrants and therefore, he would not have had arguable probable cause to arrest Brown. All three crimes–impersonation of a police officer, obstruction, and loitering or prowling- are inherently predicated on an officer’s factual determinations and lack the sort of independent verification available in evaluating the existence of probable cause for other crimes. If Gill lied in explaining why he believed Brown committed those offenses, it is difficult to imagine how arguable probable cause existed to arrest him for them.” Brown v. Gill, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34335 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2019).*
The encounter with the officer was not a seizure. She was parked five spaces away from defendant’s car and off to the side. When talking to defendant she saw a meth pipe in plain view. “The parties do not dispute that Byers was no longer free to leave once Officer Jackson observed the methamphetamine pipe and instructed Byers to turn around to face the vehicle and place his hands on his head.” The search of the person that followed was valid as a search incident. United States v. Byers, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199476 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 3, 2019).*
The district court’s finding that the officer’s statement in the affidavit for search warrant was an unintentional mistake was clearly supported by the record. Thus, the first prong of Franks isn’t satisfied, and the second becomes irrelevant. United States v. Brunson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34358 (3d Cir. Nov. 19, 2019).*
Posted inFranks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure|Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: The encounter started as consensual because the officer approached from the side to a parked car; RS developed
Reason: Giving Government Vast Snooping Authority Is One Thing Democrats and Republicans Both Like by J.D. Tuccille (“‘The USA PATRIOT Act broadly expands law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers and represents one of the most significant threats to civil liberties, privacy, and democratic traditions in US history,’ notes the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The law ‘eliminates checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that those powers were not abused,’ the group adds.”)
Posted inNational security|Comments Off on Reason: Giving Government Vast Snooping Authority Is One Thing Democrats and Republicans Both Like
The Intercept: Senators Press Amazon on Ring’s Sloppy Security Practices by Sam Biddle (“This past year has been chock full of uncomfortable revelations about Ring, the surveillance social network and home security hardware company acquired by Amazon for a reported $800 million, including reports of potentially disastrous internal security practices, an apparent disregard for user privacy, and wave after wave of detail on secret partnerships with local police. Today, in a letter addressed to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, five Democratic senators are asking for an explanation, citing potential threats to U.S. national security.”)
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on The Intercept: Senators Press Amazon on Ring’s Sloppy Security Practices
Courthouse News Service: Ex-Houston Cop Faces Federal Charges Over Fatal Drug Raid by Cameron Langford (“A former Houston policeman made his first appearance in federal court Wednesday to face charges that a married couple was shot dead by a SWAT team in their home because he made false statements in a warrant affidavit.”)
Posted inPolice misconduct|Comments Off on Courthouse News Service: Ex-Houston Cop Faces Federal Charges Over Fatal Drug Raid
Courthouse News Service: False Drug Test Results Blamed for Jailhouse Punishments by Amanda Ottaway (“According to the complaint, DOCCS is currently in the process of overturning all positive results generated by the faulty tests, which it says are the result of a ‘cross reactivity’ issue.”)
"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.
