Forbes: Are Conversational Interfaces The ‘Foot In The Door’ For Government Surveillance? by Ilker Koksal:
Amazon Echo, released in 2014, introduced voice software into the home, quickly followed by Google Home, Apples’s HomePod and other generic smart speakers. In fact, the researcher Canalys, suggests 78 million smart speakers were sold last year. And don’t forget the millions of people who use digital assistants on their smartphones and tablets.
There was probable cause on the totality for this search warrant. Defendant’s attack on what’s not there doesn’t help him. United States v. Jones, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20851 (6th Cir. July 15, 2019).
There was a factual basis for defendant’s stop. The request for identification was reasonable, and the stop as a whole was not unreasonable in length. United States v. Key, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117233 (N.D. Ga. July 15, 2019).*
LA Times: Women in jail endured group strip searches. LA County to pay $53 million to settle suit by Alene Tchekmedyinsta:
Continue reading
ClickOrlando.com: Be careful when driving with large amounts of cash in your vehicle by Steve Montiero:
Troopers may ask to see proof.
A Carpenter CSLI plain error argument isn’t reached because of deficiencies in the record brought up. State v. Avant, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 415 (July 15, 2019)*:
Continue reading
Defendant twice asked the USMJ for a Franks hearing and never got one. On review, application of the good faith exception is sustained. “Here, the Government has shown that McMahon and the other law enforcement officers that executed the search acted in good faith on it. Consequently, the Government avoids any possible suppression resulting from a Franks hearing.” [Which doesn’t follow.] United States v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117326 (W.D. N.Y. July 15, 2019).*
In his habeas case, petitioner claimed defense counsel failed to pursue a suppression motion over seizure of his trial papers in his jail cell before trial. Defense counsel in fact litigated that by filing an emergency motion and getting a hearing and recovering papers. It wasn’t called a “suppression motion,” but it was the functional equivalent of one. So, no IAC. Pawley v. Inch, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117301 (S.D. Fla. July 12, 2019).*
The fact a stop was started in one county and actually occurred as defendant crossed the county line is not a basis for suppressing the stop. Defendant’s consent to search his house is suppressed, however, because of language difficulties: “Thus, under the totality of the circumstances presented here, the undersigned finds that the consent given by Defendant cannot be considered free, intelligent, and unequivocal.” United States v. Villa, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117356 (W.D. N.C. Date: June 10, 2019).
Defendant was indicted in 2018 for a 2013 tax search. The warrant did not specify the crime under investigation, although the leader of the raid told the others what they were looking for. Nothing was incorporated, and the court finds the search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment for lack of particularity. Yet, a hearing will be held on the question of good faith. United States v. Drago, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117353 (E.D. N.Y. June 25, 2019),* adopted 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164409 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019)* (the government didn’t object).
A trash pull alone should not be enough for probable cause to search a house. Here, there was more of complaints of neighbors of people coming and going at all hours. “Investigators confirmed this complaint during their own surveillance of the Property, as they observed vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the Property during the early morning.” United States v. Tate, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116465 (N.D. Ohio July 13, 2019).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress where it would have lost on the merits. State v. Starks, 2019-Ohio-2842, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 2934 (2d Dist. July 12, 2019).*
SF Chronical: DNA hearings: SF officers gave suspect in rapes alcohol test even though they didn’t think he was drunk by Evan Sernoffsky:
San Francisco police never smelled alcohol when they pulled over Orlando Vilchez Lazo last year. They never gave him a field sobriety test. And, an officer testified in court on Monday, they never believed he was intoxicated.
But in the early morning hours of July 7, 2018, officers nonetheless made Vilchez Lazo blow into an alcohol screening test. They wanted his DNA.
“Both parties and the district court failed to address qualified immunity’s second question. The district court did not consider whether Defendants’ conduct—even assuming it violated the Fourth Amendment—violated clearly established law. See Morrow, 917 F.3d at 874. McDonald points to no such law on appeal. On remand, the parties and the district court must focus on whether clearly established law at the time of this police raid prohibited the force used under the circumstances. See Escondido, 139 S. Ct. at 503-04.” McDonald v. McClelland, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20581 (5th Cir. July 11, 2019).*
Plaintiff’s § 1983 case fails because it was filed outside the statute of limitations. Leonard v. Polk County Sheriff Dep’t, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20535 (11th Cir. July 10, 2019).*
Defendant was properly subjected to a probation search. The first search led to a second search. United States v. Hardesty, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20724 (9th Cir. July 12, 2019).*
Defendant doesn’t get discovery of the entire breadth of this child pornography investigation of which he was only a small part. There were communications between NCMEC and Yahoo over 382 Yahoo accounts in the Philippines and 550 in the U.S., 100 U.S. search warrants, and 195 FBI lead packages sent out. United States v. Wolfenbarger, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115764 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2019).*
The defendant in the 2017 New York City truck attack attributed to ISIS moved to suppress his cell phone search, primarily on the ground that ubiquity of cell phones alone isn’t enough. There was more. The court credits the FBI agent’s affidavit that defendant likely was in contact with ISIS through the phone by calls or social media. Probable cause was shown, and the warrant was particular. United States v. Saipov, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115614 (S.D. N.Y. July 11, 2019).*
“Like the district court, we conclude that the affidavits supporting each of the GPS warrant applications provided probable cause to believe that Petruk was involved in methamphetamine trafficking and that the location data from the vehicles would lead to evidence of that trafficking.” United States v. Petruk, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20601 (8th Cir. July 11, 2019).*
Daily Beast: ‘Red Flags’ as New Documents Point to Blind Spots of NYPD ‘Predictive Policing’ by Ali Winston:
“They’re digitizing the legacy of stop-and-frisk. This is effectively math-washing racially biased policing practices.”
The Atlantic: On the Road, Police Power Has Few Limits by Sarah A. Seo:
Officers have wide discretion when they pull over motorists. And the courts keep giving them more.
Somehow, papers were seized [or obtained] from the county public defender in the case [without explanation, which is not uncommon in New York appellate cases], and defendant claimed attorney-client privilege. The court finds the crime-fraud exception applies, and what was obtained was admissible. People v Gannon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05591, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5618 (3d Dept. July 11, 2019):
Continue reading
In what may be a first, the District of Rhode Island suppresses both CSLI and an apartment search warrant for lack of probable cause and then declines to apply the good faith exception. United States v. Ramos, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115180 (D. R.I. July 11, 2019):
Continue reading
Getting back to the blog.
Why do all three editors want the supplement by mid-July?
WSJ: Immigration-Enforcement Raids Begin in New York by Jim Carlton and Corinne Ramey:
ICE agents attempt raids in at least two city neighborhoods; President Trump says roundups will focus on criminals
And some were stymied by lack of warrants.
NYTimes: How Dangerous Is Facial Recognition Technology? by Sahil Chinoy:
When will we finally learn we cannot predict people’s character from their appearance?
The 40 minute delay for the dog sniff, already based on reasonable suspicion, was reasonable. The dog was at a residence related to the same investigation then came to where the car was stopped. The court also mentions the weather was bad with heavy snow. State v. Perkins, 2019 Utah App. LEXIS 121 (July 11, 2019).*
Defendant’s motion through new counsel to seek to file a second motion to suppress to add a Franks ground was denied for timeliness. The proposed motion to suppress also wouldn’t be sufficient anyway because it was speculative. United States v. Gulley, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20613 (6th Cir. July 11, 2019).*
