SF Chronicle: Jeff Adachi case: Judge quashes SFPD warrant used to search journalist’s phone by Megan Cassidy:
A judge on Thursday quashed a search warrant used by San Francisco police to search a journalist’s phone in what was part of a controversial investigation into the leak of a police report on the death of Public Defender Jeff Adachi.
The government did not show probable cause to believe that child pornography was on defendant’s electronic devices. The officer’s experience is one thing, but no facts suggest that defendant “is a collector of child pornography.” The record is inadequate to determine whether the good faith exception should apply, and a hearing will be scheduled. United States v. Lipscomb, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118365 (E.D. Va. July 16, 2019),* later opinion United States v. Lipscomb, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146767 (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2019) (reported here) (GFE shown outside the four corners of the affidavit).
“This is a child-exploitation case. Principally at issue is whether agents exceeded the scope of a warrant authorizing the search of a ‘residence’ when they searched a ‘shed-like structure’ on the property but not mentioned in the warrant. The Court holds that they did not and that, in any event, the good-faith exception controls.” United States v. Babin, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118357 (M.D. La. July 16, 2019).*
There was probable cause for a search warrant for photos and videos on defendant’s cell phone in a home invasion case based on all the evidence in the case to that point and, pointedly, admission there were videos on the phone, and that could tell who confederates might be as well as where she was. Commonwealth v. Fencher, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 618 (July 17, 2019).
Defendant’s claim that the government didn’t provide discovery to enable him to properly challenge the search in his case was waived by his guilty plea. Henton v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118526 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2019).*
Officers had a warrant for defendant’s person and belongings. It wasn’t unreasonable to move the place of the search from the alley where he was arrested inside, even as a search incident. United States v. Sanchez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118539 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2019).
The trial court didn’t err in denying a Franks motion without a hearing because there was no substantial preliminary showing of falsity or materiality. People v. Alize, 2019 NY Slip Op 05676, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5657 (2d Dept. July 17, 2019).*
The district court didn’t err in holding cross-examination about alleged falsities in a search warrant affidavit where the product of the search was never admitted at trial. Also, in light of all the proof, it was harmless at best. United States v. Williams, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21134 (4th Cir. July 17, 2019).
Defense counsel couldn’t be ineffective for not presenting things not yet known about the case at the time of the hearing. “Even if there were prejudice, the record suggests that counsel advocated for Petitioner at a level above which is objectively reasonable.” Dearborn v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118766 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2019).*
Defendant lived on property with his mother, but he was in a trailer. It was unreasonable for officers to believe that she had joint control over his part of the property. At best, the situation was such that officers should have followed up with her as to who had what. The exclusionary rule should apply to deter such future violations. United States v. Duggan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118932 (E.D. Tenn. July 17, 2019).
Officers stopped a car looking for Mark Looney. “Prior to the determination that Mark Looney was not the driver of the vehicle, defendant Price engaged in conduct which provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to believe that Price was engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Price, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118926 (W.D. Mo. June 21, 2019).*
“[W]e conclude the ‘evidentiary consequence’ provided by Section 1547(e) for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood test — the admission of that refusal at a subsequent trial for DUI — remains constitutionally permissible post-Birchfield. We therefore affirm the order of the Superior Court.” Commonwealth v. Bell, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 3842 (July 17, 2019).
The officer had reasonable suspicion defendant was driving and had warrants for him when the stop occurred. State v. Strong, 2019-Ohio-2888, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 2973 (4th Dist. July 9, 2019).*
This Facebook warrant just seeks way, way too much information when it could have been far more narrowly tailored. “That said, the court need not decide whether the Facebook Warrant violated the Fourth Amendment because, even if it did, the Facebook Warrant falls into the ‘good faith exception’ to the exclusionary rule established by United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984). See Blake, 868 F.3d at 974 (declining to decide whether broad Facebook warrants violated the Fourth Amendment because the court founds that the good-faith exception applied). …” United States v. Shipp, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117407 (E.D. N.Y. July 16, 2019):
Continue reading
Forbes: Cop Who Accidentally Shot 10-Year-Old When Aiming For Family Dog Can’t Be Sued, Federal Court Rules by Nick Sibilla:
Continue reading
Bloomberg: You’re Home Alone With Alexa. Are Your Secrets Safe? by Matt Day
“[W]e conclude the ‘evidentiary consequence’ provided by Section 1547(e) for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood test — the admission of that refusal at a subsequent trial for DUI — remains constitutionally permissible post-Birchfield. We therefore affirm the order of the Superior Court.” Commonwealth v. Bell, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 3842 (July 17, 2019).
The stop was concededly valid. “[T]he record reflects that the canine sniff did not, in fact, measurably prolong the traffic stop but instead was conducted within the time reasonably required to complete the stop’s mission.” Tinker v. State, 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 321 (July 16, 2019).*
NBC2 News: Can police search your car for medical marijuana after you leave a dispensary? by Delia D’Ambra:
Attorneys are becoming concerned these patients could fall victim to law enforcement overreach and have their rights violated and not even know it.
Motions for return of property seized by search warrant issued for a Statewide Investigating Grand Jury are to be addressed to the judge supervising the grand jury. In re Return of Seized Property, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 3845 (July 17, 2019).
Omission that the CI who had OD’d once and was a drug addict didn’t sufficiently undermine her credibility where the question here was the source of drugs. Materiality for a Franks claim fails. United States v. Culton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117896 (N.D. Ga. July 16, 2019).*
In this anticipatory warrant case, the package was received, but it was placed back outside with “return to sender” written on it. Still, the warrant was constitutionally sufficient and the officers supplying their own triggering event, one not provided for in the warrant, was not unreasonable under the good faith exception. The evidence still supported defendant’s conviction for conspiracy. United States v. Brown, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21019 (July 16, 2019):
Continue reading
Immigration Blog: When May ICE Agents Enter Residences or Private Premises to Make Arrests? by Dan Cadman:
Continue reading
Plaintiff female prisoners filed a Fourth Amendment and Eighth Amendment claim against a jail for what they alleged was an invasion of privacy by an unjustified group strip search. The district court granted summary judgment against them on the Fourth Amendment claim, and the Eighth Amendment claim went to trial with a defense verdict. The court declines to reinstate the Fourth Amendment claim because of doubts in the law and that direction has to come from SCOTUS. Henry v. Hulett, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21009 (7th Cir. July 16, 2019) (dissent), reh. en banc granted 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37566 (7th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019):
Continue reading
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a § 1983 suit against police officers. Mayo v. Lasalle County, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117667 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2019).*
The court concludes defendant didn’t just drop his backpack when confronted by the police. He tossed it a distance away from him, and the court determines that was an act of abandonment. United States v. Lemasters, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118056 (N.D. W.Va. July 16, 2019),* adopting, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119074 (N.D. W.Va. June 11, 2019).*
The exclusionary rule does not apply to drug testing in a termination of parental rights case. In the Interest of L.C.L., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 6018 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) July 16, 2019).
The smell of marijuana during a traffic stop was probable cause to search. United States v. Flowers, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118221 (D. Neb. July 16, 2019).*
Google as an email provider acts as a private actor when it scans images attached to email for child pornography. United States v. Crawford, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118239 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2019).*
Where there was probable cause and the automobile exception applied, the fact defendant walked away from the vehicle didn’t prohibit its search. Cleveland v. State, 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 316 (July 15, 2019).
Defendant was apparently asleep parked in an alley, and parking in an alley was a traffic violation. When the officer tried to rouse him, he could see drug paraphernalia on the console, and that justified a search. United States v. Musquiz, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118238 (D. Neb. July 16, 2019).*
