Law.com: Artificial Intelligence and the Fourth Amendment: When Alexa Can Be a Witness Against You by Katherine B. Forrest:
Today, artificial intelligence is actually able to provide much of the same evidence that human witnesses can, with a higher degree of accuracy, unerring memory and an absence of personal motivation.
Defendant’s possession of marijuana on his person away from his house didn’t create exigent circumstances for a search of it. Giles v. Commonwealth, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 6= (Apr. 12, 2019).
Installation of an electronically read gas meter was a minimal invasion of privacy, and summary judgment was properly granted. Farrar v. Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp., 2019 La. App. LEXIS 615 (La. App. 2 Cir. Apr. 10, 2019).*
Business Week: A Researcher Needed Three Hours to Identify Me From My DNA by Kristen V Brown:
Using just my DNA, a genealogist was able to identify me in three and a half hours.
It wasn’t hard. I’d previously sent a DNA sample to the genetic testing company 23andMe Inc. and then uploaded my data anonymously to a genealogy website. Researcher Michelle Trostler was able to access my data from that site and spent an afternoon looking for connections that would help her put a name to my data.
The probable cause for the search warrant of defendant’s cell phone was only for specific location information. “However, the search warrant authorizes a search and seizure of information broader than GPS location information. Specifically, the search warrant allows the State to search ‘numbers dialed, incoming numbers/chip numbers/direct connects/walkie talkie if needed, subscribers electronic serial number, and all billing information/accounts notes, for the specified cellular/wireless telephones, or any telephone numbers revealed the original records.’” As to everything else, the search is suppressed as lacking probable cause. State v. Risper, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 190 (Apr. 12, 2019).
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the State did not meet its burden of showing that defendant intentionally abandoned his cell phone. Although the phone was found lying in a parking lot in front of apartments, there was no report that the phone was lost or stolen during the approximately 12 hours after it was found up until the first search. Defendant never denied ownership of the phone, nor was there other evidence of actions showing he had intentionally discarded the cell phone. The screen was locked, and this indicated his intent to maintain privacy and preserve protection from uninvited examination by others. Thus, it should have been suppressed. State v. Valles, 2019 ND 108 (Apr. 11, 2019)
14 hour old information for a probation search was not stale. State v. Stenhoff, 2019 ND 106 (Apr. 11, 2019).
Defendant didn’t preserve his search issues for appeal under state law. “In attempting to reserve the question of whether Defendant was “unlawfully searched” and ‘unlawfully detained’ in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Defendant asks this court to conduct a complete overview of search and seizure law as applied to the facts of this case. This court has repeatedly declined to engage in or conduct such an overview. … We agree with the State that this appeal must be dismissed.” State v. Frazier, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 228 (Apr. 10, 2019).*
A jail phone call to defendant’s cell phone telling him to tell another to flee was probable cause for a search of the phone. United States v. Carter, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10906 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2019).*
Officers acted with reasonable suspicion in detaining plaintiff and his passenger wife for plaintiff’s refusal to open the trunk of his car as he left a Menard’s lumberyard where there was a sign that all vehicles leaving would be inspected. He refused to submit to an inspection. Thus police were called, and the officers developed reasonable suspicion something might be awry. In lawfully detaining the driver with reasonable suspicion, the police also lawfully detained his passenger. Because there was reasonable suspicion, they get qualified immunity. [Why not say just “there is no liability”?] Waters v. Madson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10733 (8th Cir. Apr. 11, 2019).*
Collins v. Virginia on remand: The good faith exception applies to sustain the search because no reasonably well trained officer would have known that automobile exception would apply on the curtilage in the garage. Collins v. Commonwealth, 2019 Va. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 28, 2019).
Remember that Rodriguez lost on remand, too. So much for the rule that the winning litigant at least gets the benefit of the “new” rule created in his or her case.
Acting on an anonymous tip that defendant had obtained a fair amount of marijuana and brought it back to town, police did a trash search and found significant corroborating evidence that he’d have marijuana in the house. The court distinguishes a case with an innocent explanation. “The packaging found in the garbage was labeled as containing THC or marijuana, including marijuana cigarettes. While the items may have an innocent explanation, and contained a legal substance when purchased in another state, the judge that issued the warrant relied on ‘common knowledge’ and common sense in finding probable cause that contraband would be found in the house based on the evidence from the garbage search.” State v. Odum, 2019 ND 105, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 110 (Apr. 11, 2019).
Officers encountered defendant for a welfare check. When it was obvious he was not in need of any help, it was unreasonable to keep his DL and run it for warrants. Strieff does not apply. State v. Manwarren, 2019 Kan. App. LEXIS 20 (Apr. 12, 2019):
Continue reading
Engadget: Google faces surge in police requests for mobile location data by Jon Fingas:
Continue reading
A child pornography search warrant for all computer stuff in the house associated with a particular IP address wasn’t directed at defendant–it was for the IP address to identify the potential user. Seizing all computer related stuff in the house wasn’t unreasonable under the warrant. O’Connor v. State, 2019 Alas. App. LEXIS 58 (Apr. 12, 2019).
“Ricks’s claim that Stearns’s affidavit establishes that the government committed fraud on the court when it used the affidavit to improperly obtain a wiretap on his cellular phone does not satisfy the requirements for authorizing him to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.” It’s not newly discovered. Ricks v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10746 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 2019).*
Exigency of officer safety did not permit officers to search defendant’s garage. They came without a search warrant to arrest a third person. Defendant denied anyone else was there, refused to consent to a search, and turned and walked away. As the officers got closer to the garage following him, they saw a compound bow and a rifle inside. “After Appellant told the troopers to leave his property, Appellant walked away. It is not reasonable to infer from Appellant’s retreat that Appellant was intending to harm the troopers.” Commonwealth v. Duke, 2019 PA Super 115, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 342 (Apr. 12, 2019).
Enough was shown to the issuing magistrate to justify a search of the entire premises because nexus was shown. Reconsideration denied. United States v. Matthews, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61098 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2019).*
Carpenter does not qualify for retroactive effect to obtaining CSLI in 2013. United States v. Davis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63314 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2019):
Continue reading
The affidavit for search warrant omitted that defendant had been tried and acquitted of incest shortly before. Recasting the affidavit to include that fact, however, still leads to probable cause. “The Court determines that probable cause remains even after the Court has supplemented the evidence presented to Judge Pinski with Bennett’s acquittal on the Felony Incest charge.” United States v. Bennett, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61909 (D. Mont. Apr. 10, 2019).
Hearsay in a report that defendant’s computer in a child pornography case might have not contacted an overseas server as alleged in the affidavit for the search warrant wasn’t sufficient to show potential Franks violation undermining the probable cause. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. Maloney v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61332 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 10, 2019).*
A single firearm seen in the house six months before the search warrant was sought, without some evidence possession was ongoing, wasn’t enough to overcome staleness. Commonwealth v. Hart, 2019 Mass. App. LEXIS 43 (Apr. 11, 2019):
Continue reading
NYT: Tracking Phones, Google Is a Dragnet for the Police The tech giant records people’s locations worldwide. Now, investigators are using it to find suspects and witnesses near crimes, running the risk of snaring the innocent. by Jennifer Valentino-DeVries
Gizmodo: The Feds, Police Are Using Google’s Location History Feature to Track Down Suspects by Tom McKay:
Continue reading
Detaining a business owner for four hours for civil violations and pulling a gun wasn’t clearly established as a Fourth Amendment violation, so the officer gets [away with it by getting] qualified immunity. Okorie v. Crawford, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10918 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2019). Proof once again that qualified immunity is slowly eating away the Fourth Amendment:
Continue reading
“The evidence presented at the suppression hearing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, supports the denial of Weems’s motion to suppress based on either the exigent-circumstances or protective-sweep doctrines. … Specifically, once Taylor opened the door, officers were able to determine that the two occupants matched the descriptions provided by witnesses. Furthermore, Taylor confirmed that both she and Weems were present at the scene of the shooting. At this point, the officers were justified in entering the motel room to do a protective sweep and secure the premises, especially considering a gun was involved in the underlying incident for which the officers were investigating. … The protective sweep was done for the purpose of the safety of the officers and others.” Weems v. State, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 2889 (Tex. App. – Waco Apr. 10, 2019).
