A court order doesn’t need to be titled “search warrant” to be considered one. The statute involved says a “search warrant” is required, but any court order issued on probable cause is valid. Whitlow v. Commonwealth, 2019 Ky. LEXIS 205 (June 14, 2019).
The court finds defendant consented to the search of his house. There also was justification for a protective sweep. United States v. Hernandez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100836 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2019).*
“Walker argues there was no evidence supporting the third Burton premise. We disagree, as several of the ‘factors that help establish the required nexus between a defendant’s drug-dealing activities and his home’ are present in this case. … Walker conducted the drug transactions in a car parked in the driveway behind 6735 Woodstock, ‘rendering his home a more likely repository of his drug-related paraphernalia.’ … He was seen leaving the house immediately before selling drugs to the informant, supporting the inference that the drugs were being stored there. Finally, the affidavit provides that Weaver, an officer with substantial experience and specialized training in narcotics investigations, believed that the residence was being used for the storage and distribution of drugs.” United States v. Walker, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18142 (3d Cir. June 17, 2019).
After defendant’s traffic stop, a search of the car’s interior was justified by his probation search waiver. United States v. Griffith, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99686 (W.D. Mo. June 14, 2019).*
Defendant was arrested in an open wooded area, and the protective sweep of a shed near him was valid. United States v. Flanagan, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100047 (N.D. Ala. May 29, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99228 (N.D. Ala. June 13, 2019).
If there is probable cause, “the ‘automobile exception’ has no separate exigency requirement” under Maryland v. Dyson. United States v. Solis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99952 (D. Kan. June 14, 2019).*
CSLI obtained six months before Carpenter is subject to the good faith exception. United States v. Cooper, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98929 (N.D. Ga. June 13, 2019).*
The Intercept: In Court, Facebook Blames Users for Destroying Their Own Right to Privacy by Sam Biddle:
But only months after Zuckerberg first outlined his ‘privacy-focused vision for social networking’ in a 3,000-word post on the social network he founded, his lawyers were explaining to a California judge that privacy on Facebook is nonexistent.
USA Today: California could become first to limit facial recognition technology; police aren’t happy by Marco della Cava:
State law enforcement officials here do not now employ the technology to scan those in the line of sight of officers. But some police officials oppose the bill on the grounds that a valuable tool could be lost.
Defendant claims his attorney was ineffective for failing to tell him about a possible motion to suppress, and, thus, he wouldn’t have pled guilty. The court, however, finds no facts anywhere in the case supporting even an inference there was a Fourth Amendment violation. Therefore, Strickland not met. Richardson v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98968 (S.D. Ind. June 13, 2019).*
Defendant’s 2254 COA request is denied. His primary claim is that his state adjudicated search claim was wrong, but Stone bars review of that. Quezada v. Raemisch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17713 (10th Cir. June 13, 2019).*
In answering a certified question from federal court, an “all due care standard” would grant qualified immunity under Iowa law. Baldwin v. City of Estherville, 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 78 (June 14, 2019).*
Defendant was the subject of a CSLI order issued without probable cause in 2016 to connect him to a murder. Carpenter was issued before he was sentenced and thus applies to his case. [Without even discussing the good faith exception exception,] The court finds the CSLI information harmless beyond reasonable doubt on the trial record. Motion for new trial denied. State v. Waters, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 283 (June 13, 2019).
DEA agents were surveilling defendants throughout the day. When they stopped their minivan, they had plenty of reason to know they were inside. United States v. Guzman, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17743 (8th Cir. June 13, 2019).*
The issuing magistrate properly issued a search warrant for text messages on defendant’s cell phone for a particular date and thereafter by inference. Prior to that particular date is suppressed for lack of probable cause. United States v. Bowen, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99200 (D. Ariz. June 12, 2019), adopting 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100150 (D. Ariz. April 16, 2019).
There is a statutory exclusionary rule on license suspensions if the officer makes a stop without jurisdiction. The court declines to extend it to any other situation where there is a problem with the stop. Westra v. Iowa DOT, 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 77 (June 15, 2019).*
Failure to leave a copy of the search warrant does not require suppression. There is no prejudice. United States v. Robinson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99902 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2019).
The CI was creditable because of admissions against interest and corroboration. The protective sweep prior to the warrant arriving was reasonable and resulted in no seizure. People v. Elder, 2019 NY Slip Op 04784, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4775 (3d Dept. June 13, 2019).*
Reason: Can the Fourth Amendment Save Us from the Coming Era of Pervasive Biometric Surveillance? by Ronald Bailey:
New technologies mean new crime solving techniques—and new threats to privacy and liberty.
WaPo: Federal task forces ban body cameras, so Atlanta police pull out. Others may follow. by Tom Jackman:
No Justice Department agents or officers use cameras, while local police are moving toward transparency.
The automobile exception is intact as it always was, and Jones didn’t do anything to change the calculus. United States v. Lee, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99900 (E.D. Mich. June 14, 2019).
The government proved that it would have otherwise sought a search warrant after the knock-and-talk because they had a wealth of probable cause and they needed to act. They chose the knock-and-talk first before the evidence could disappear. The knock-and-talk led to a plain view. United States v. Anguiano, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98336 (D. Minn. June 11, 2019).*
Plaintiff sued alleging the police caused $20,000 damages during the search of his place. The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity for defendants without an individual analysis of what defendant did what. Norris v. Williams, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17528 (11th Cir. June 12, 2019).*
“Rule 41(g) is not an appropriate vehicle for the return of property seized by civil forfeiture.” United States v. Bynum, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17510 (11th Cir. June 12, 2019).
Defendant’s claim there was a reasonable expectation of privacy as to his statements and photographs taken in the ICU doesn’t need to be decided because it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Caro, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 4012 (June 13, 2019).*
Defendant’s reaching for his waistband was the officer’s reasonable suspicion he was armed. United States v. Elmore, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98350 (D. Mass. June 11, 2019).*
Any computer or cell phone on the premises can reasonably be believed to have connected to the internet. “Nevertheless, Ms. Laurezo does not cite to any authority that requires a search warrant based on an IP address being used to upload child pornography to be limited to electronic devices belonging only to the subscriber of that IP address.” The facts allegedly omitted from the probable cause statement either were actually there or inferentially there and they weren’t material to undermining probable cause. United States v. Laurezo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98367 (D. N.M. June 12, 2019).
“We have reviewed the warrant affidavit and agree with the district court that, even if the warrant was not supported by probable cause, the affidavit contained sufficient indicia of probable cause such that the officer’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable.” United States v. Wellbeloved-Stone, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17735 (4th Cir. June 13, 2019).*
The state can’t use the right-result, wrong-theory rule when it doesn’t preserve the alternative argument to give the other party the opportunity to develop the record. State v. Hoskins, 2019 Ida. LEXIS 108 (June 13, 2019).
The evidence available to the issuing magistrate fairly supported the conclusion that defendant would be found at the premises. In addition, he was seen taking the trash out one morning, and that lends credence to the conclusion he resided there. United States v. Bondarenko, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98423 (D. Nev. June 12, 2019).*
NYTimes: Opinion: In Stores, Secret Surveillance Tracks Your Every Move by Michael Kwet:
As you shop, “beacons” are watching you, using hidden technology in your phone.
Rhode Island decides for the first time that IP information in a child pornography case is probable cause for the building at that location. Yes, it could be another person at that address, but that’s not the point. In re Austin B., 2019 R.I. LEXIS 85 (June 10, 2019).*
The government did not show that it had a basis for defendant’s stop until after the stop actually occurred, and the R&R granting the motion to suppress is adopted. United States v. Shine, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98619 (W.D. N.Y. June 12, 2019).*
The informant hearsay was reliable enough on the totality of circumstances. The CI was corroborated and proved correct. The CI had a motive to be truthful because of repercussions in his own case. United States v. Jacques, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98648 (M.D. Ala. June 12, 2019).*
The witness on standing gave two inconsistent versions: under oath and to the police and the court cannot credit her. “Importantly, Defendant has offered no proof, other than Ms. Harris’s testimony, that he was an overnight guest in the Apartment. Further, Defendant has not presented any evidence that he, regardless of whether he was an overnight guest in the Apartment, had an unrestricted right or control over Ms. Harris’s Apartment or, specifically, the master bedroom closet. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that Defendant has not met his burden of proving that he has standing to challenge the search of Ms. Harris’s Apartment.” United States v. Phyfier, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98647 (M.D. Ala. June 12, 2019).*
Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of a motel room. “The record does not establish that Defendant purchased the room or was an overnight guest.” United States v. Graber, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98753 (D. Neb. June 12, 2019).*
Reason: The Feds Want To Subject Every Burning Man Attendee to a Warrantless Drug Search by Brian Doherty:
The Bureau of Land Management sees no Fourth Amendment concerns with searching American citizens for reasons to arrest them without probable cause when it comes to their event permits.
