Evidence from the wiretap in coded language strongly supported the inference that defendant had drugs in his house. United States v. Flynn, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209546 (D.Mass. Dec. 12, 2018).*
Defendant was outside of his car walking away when he was stopped and arrested. The search of his car was based on the automobile exception because of the smell of marijuana coming from it. United States v. Mitchell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208851 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2018).*
Immigration status questions require reasonable suspicion. It was lacking at first because they thought at first defendant was somebody else, but the officer quickly concluded the correct facts. Then there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208349 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 11, 2018):
Continue reading
A reasonable but mistaken belief defendant’s car was just involved in a burglary justified its stop. United States v. Morgan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208715 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207735 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 10, 2018):
Continue reading
A surreptitiously made recording invalid by Georgia statute is still admissible in federal court. United States v. Kilpatrick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208799 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208223 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 10, 2018).
At the pleading stage, plaintiff overcomes qualified immunity, but doesn’t tell us how. “Here, viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the complaint stated a cause of action based upon Forbes’s conduct in connection with obtaining the search warrant (see Delgado v City of New York, 86 AD3d at 510). We cannot say at this stage of the action whether Forbes is entitled to qualified immunity.” Sculti v. Finley, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8429 (2d Dept. Dec. 12, 2018).*
“Dubose raises a slew of arguments [not a good sign] in support of her contention that the affidavit fails to establish probable cause to search the iPhone; however, none of those arguments has merit.” There was an argument that a critical fact which would explain contact between people on a cell phone was buried, but it wasn’t. Transcripts of jail calls supporting probable cause are not required. United States v. Dubose, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207399 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2018), adopted in part, granted in part United States v. Obie, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206781 (N.D. Ga., Dec. 6, 2018).
Ordering defendant out of the car and patting him down was justified under the Fourth Amendment. The state argues that defendant’s state constitutional argument was waived in the trial court. Waived or not, the rule is the same. Negash v. State, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 467 (Dec. 11, 2018).*
Defendant was in a “catastrophic car crash” and was at the hospital. Officers suspected defendant had been driving under the influence. Medical treatment and IVs were expected, and a warrantless blood draw was done. It turned out that it was all premature. The trial judge found no facts supporting exigency, and that binds appellate review. State v. Garcia, 2018 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1209 (Dec. 12, 2018):
Continue reading
A tracking device was put on defendant’s Jeep by warrant, and it was tracked into New Jersey as well. The court offers that it’s a difficult question whether the vehicle could be tracked in New Jersey too, but decides the case on inevitable discovery. Metelus v. State, 2018 Del. LEXIS 556 (Dec. 10, 2018) (same: Ways v. State, 2018 Del. LEXIS 550 (Dec. 11, 2018)):
Continue reading
Defendant argues that the officers violated Washington state law in his search and seizure. That doesn’t matter in federal court. United States v. Dauenhauer, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34797 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2018).
Under Hudson, “The federal exclusionary rule, therefore, does not apply to a violation of the knock and announce rule.” The officers said they did, and petitioner says they didn’t. Doesn’t matter, especially on post-conviction. Potter v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208782 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018).*
Plaintiff’s pat down at the jail after a valid arrest led officers to believe that he had something protruding from his anus. He denied anything was there, and he refused to consent to removing it. Officers got a search warrant for an anal cavity search at the jail. A doctor performed the search and nothing was found. Plaintiff then sued arguing that the search should never have occurred. The defendants get qualified immunity because there was probable cause. Charlot v. City of Houston, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34633 5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)*:
Continue reading
Apparent authority to consent is also standing. Lack of apparent authority to consent is no standing. State v. Madewell, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 896 (Dec. 12, 2018).
The smell of marijuana was probable cause for the search of defendant’s car. United States v. Mitchell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208851 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 29, 2018),* adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207517 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2018).*
“In the wiretap context, [the particularity] requirements are satisfied by identification of the telephone line to be tapped and the particular conversations to be seized.” United States v. Campos, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207456 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2018).*
Defendant was in his car on another person’s curtilage when he was there to visit. The officer’s walking up to the car on the curtilage of the owner to look in defendant’s car window violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Darden, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207956 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 10, 2018):
Continue reading
The fact something was extracted from defendant’s iPod in April but not turned over to the defense until August isn’t a ground to dismiss. United States v. Taylor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206364 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2018).
There was probable cause: “Based on my review of the evidence, I find that the Application for the 4181 Leidy Avenue Search Warrant was supported by probable cause because it included information from confidential informants, summaries of seven controlled buys, summaries of intercepted conversations that related to Toney’s drug transactions, and surveillance of Toney’s participation in drug trafficking activities.” United States v. Toney, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206534 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2018).*
“Maurice Carter pled guilty to a variety of sex crimes and received a twenty-year prison sentence. He now petitions for habeas relief. Carter alleges his attorneys were constitutionally ineffective for failing to make the best arguments for suppression of key evidence. Yet even if Carter’s counsel had made different arguments, the end result in his case would have remained the same—the evidence against Carter would have come in. Therefore, we affirm the district court and deny Carter’s habeas petition.” Carter v. Parris, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34622 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018).
“Overall, initially there was a basis for the Terry search which developed into probable cause to search the vehicle based on the marijuana observed in plain view and the cash with the smell of marijuana. There was no violation of the Fourth Amendment and no basis to suppress the evidence. Shkambi’s complaints about the search lack merit.” Shkambi v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208765 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208065 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018).*
“Maurice Carter pled guilty to a variety of sex crimes and received a twenty-year prison sentence. He now petitions for habeas relief. Carter alleges his attorneys were constitutionally ineffective for failing to make the best arguments for suppression of key evidence. Yet even if Carter’s counsel had made different arguments, the end result in his case would have remained the same—the evidence against Carter would have come in. Therefore, we affirm the district court and deny Carter’s habeas petition.” Carter v. Parris, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34622 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018).
Alleged inconsistency about who was using a cell phone in a wiretap application, and the wiretap led to a search warrant, doesn’t undermine the search warrant. It wasn’t material nor was it shown to be with reckless disregard for the truth. United States v. Toney, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206534 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2018).*
Defendant lacked standing to contest a search of the apartment he knew was rented by another for him via identity theft. United States v. Kafuku, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207331 (D. Utah Dec. 8, 2018):
Continue reading
When defendant was arrested for kidnapping and murder, exigent circumstances justified seizing and then searching defendant’s clothes for trace evidence of the crime. Commonwealth v. Parker, 2018 Mass. LEXIS 807 (Dec. 7, 2018).
A dead body near defendant’s apartment with nexus to defendant was probable cause for a search warrant for defendant’s apartment. Mizell v. State, 2018 Ga. LEXIS 795 (Dec. 10, 2018).*
Cross-Enforcement of the Fourth Amendment, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 471 (2018), by Orin Kerr. Abstract:
Continue reading
