D.Minn.: Affidavit at scene of execution of SW helps narrow its overbreadth

“Given the scope and pervasiveness of the fraud alleged, the search warrant issued for Ms. Natysin’s home was not overly broad.” “This finding is supported in part by the fact the affidavit accompanied the warrant to the search and was available for officers conducting the search to refer to. This affidavit helps further define the ‘overarching purpose of the search,’ which was to discover evidence related to a well-defined fraudulent wire transfer scheme. See id. The fact that the warrant permitted seizure of items maintained or stored by Ms. Natysin’s husband does not render the warrant overbroad in this circumstance, where the fraud alleged is widespread and where fraudulent payments were concealed by being made to bank accounts owned by Ms. Natysin’s husband.” United States v. Natysin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165364 (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164911 (D. Minn. Sep. 26, 2018).

Posted in Overbreadth | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Affidavit at scene of execution of SW helps narrow its overbreadth

NY1: Even if the SW was overbroad, the remainder seized all supports the conviction

“Even assuming that the warrant’s authorization for the seizure and search of cell phones and other electronic devices was somewhat overbroad, the balance of the warrant, pursuant to which evidence implicating defendant in two of the charged robberies was recovered, was not invalidated ….” People v. Penn, 2018 NY Slip Op 06179, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6134 (1st Dept. Sep. 25, 2018).* Harmless error without saying it.

Defendant waived his right to appeal in his prosecution, and that forecloses this appeal. People v. Ortiz, 2018 NY Slip Op 06199, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6148 (1st Dept. Sep. 26, 2018).*

Posted in Overbreadth | Comments Off on NY1: Even if the SW was overbroad, the remainder seized all supports the conviction

E.D.Tex.: The number of people reviewing an affidavit for SW is relevant to GFE

The affidavit was not bare bones, and it provided a nexus to the place to be searched. In addition, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Taylor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164231 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 17, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164231 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on E.D.Tex.: The number of people reviewing an affidavit for SW is relevant to GFE

CA7: Officer at trial twice referring to def as “target” of search wasn’t reversible where court ordered jury to disregard

A police officer at trial twice referred to defendant as the “target of a search warrant.” The first was on direct and ordered struck and the jury directed to disregard. It happened again during cross of the same witness. Same objection and same result. It was not an abuse of discretion to handle it that way and then to deny a mistrial. United States v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27360 (7th Cir. Sep. 25, 2018).

“[¶16] Because Birchfield did not abrogate the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3), Schoon, 2018 ND 210, ¶¶ 18-2 4, our decision in O’Connor requires the driver be informed of the entire statutory warning. We defer to the district court’s finding that Deputy Lloyd did not provide the entire warning, and conclude that the blood test is inadmissible as a result. The motion to suppress the blood test result should have been granted.” State v. Bohe, 2018 ND 216, 2018 N.D. LEXIS 225 (Sep. 25, 2018).*

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on CA7: Officer at trial twice referring to def as “target” of search wasn’t reversible where court ordered jury to disregard

MN: Another’s outside storage unit at an apartment building found because its key was found during a search of the apt couldn’t be searched under apt SW

An apartment of another was searched under a warrant, and a key to a storage unit was found. The storage unit was nearby but not in the apartment, and it was in defendant’s name. Searching the storage unit in another person’s name violated the Fourth Amendment. State v. Hill, 2018 Minn. App. LEXIS 423 (Sep. 24, 2018).

911 received a hang up call from a cell phone, and there was a man and a woman screaming. Based on GPS information alone, an officer was dispatched to defendant’s address. He knocked on the door, and fairly corroborated that this was the proper place. Enough information was presented to the officer to justify a warrantless entry for exigency and a protective sweep. State v. Lawrence, 2018-Ohio-3844, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4161 (11th Dist. Sep. 24, 2018).

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Scope of search | Comments Off on MN: Another’s outside storage unit at an apartment building found because its key was found during a search of the apt couldn’t be searched under apt SW

CO: Def’s DNA was unlawfully collected in a juvenile proceeding and entered into CODIS, and the exclusionary rule is applied

Defendant’s DNA was unlawfully collected in a juvenile proceeding that was ultimately dismissed with deferral. It wasn’t removed from CODIS, and defendant was later linked to a carjacking from his DNA. The exclusionary rule is applied because the first search was unlawful and shouldn’t have happened. Casillas v. People, 2018 CO 78, 2018 Colo. LEXIS 813 (Sep. 24, 2018), rev’g People v. Casillas, 2015 COA 15, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 289 (2015).

Posted in DNA, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on CO: Def’s DNA was unlawfully collected in a juvenile proceeding and entered into CODIS, and the exclusionary rule is applied

W.D.Va.: § 1983 case over same search lost in state court is barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s § 1983 case is a replay of his search issue he lost in state court, so it’s barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Wells v. Martin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162564 (W.D. Va. Sep. 24, 2018).

Because plaintiff’s decedent was using more and more force against the officer to resist arrest, the officer was also permitted to, and this did not violate clearly established law. The use of deadly force was justified when plaintiff’s decedent pinned the officer down and was beating his face, and the officer felt he was losing consciousness and shot him. Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27263 (5th Cir. Sep. 24, 2018).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: § 1983 case over same search lost in state court is barred by Heck

LA1: Changing suppression issue on appeal from lack of PC to arrest to an unreasonable search is waiver of the issue

Defendant’s motion changed from probable cause to arrest to whether there was an unreasonable search and seizure between the suppression hearing and the appeal. Thus, the issue for appeal wasn’t presented to the trial court, so it’s not preserved for appeal. State v. Howard, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 1786 (La. App. 1 Cir. Sep. 21, 2018).

A Dominican Republic wiretap’s product made it into a wiretap allegation in Massachusetts. Even if that was an unlawful wiretap, defendant doesn’t allege his own conversations were ever captured. Therefore, no standing. United States v. Marte, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162581 (D. Mass. Sep. 24, 2018).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Standards of review, Standing | Comments Off on LA1: Changing suppression issue on appeal from lack of PC to arrest to an unreasonable search is waiver of the issue

S.D.N.Y.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to federal supervised release hearings

The exclusionary rule is not applicable to federal supervised release revocation hearings. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162830 (S.D. N.Y. Sep. 24, 2018).

The government did, in fact, have a search warrant for defendant’s CSLI, so his claim they didn’t fails [never mentioning it was four years before Carpenter]. United States v. Nastri, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162666 (D. Vt. Sep. 24, 2018).*

Posted in Cell site location information, Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to federal supervised release hearings

CA6: Alleged inappropriate search of 17-year-old girl before letting her go to bathroom during traffic stop that led to a drug dog and finding nothing gets to go to jury

A traffic stop of plaintiff’s family led to calling a drug dog. While waiting for the drug dog, plaintiff had to use the bathroom, and the detaining officers called for a female officer to escort her to a nearby bathroom and handcuffed her and inappropriately searched her finding nothing. There is also a question to be left for a jury whether this officer was already aware that the drug dog found nothing. Telling plaintiff to “step over here” for the search cuts both ways on the question of consent to that search while she was handcuffed, and a jury will have to decide. Harris v. Klare, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25139 (6th Cir. Sep. 5, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Body searches, Police misconduct | Comments Off on CA6: Alleged inappropriate search of 17-year-old girl before letting her go to bathroom during traffic stop that led to a drug dog and finding nothing gets to go to jury

W.D.Pa.: Request for CI’s identity was speculative venture here and denied

Defendant’s claim he needs the CI’s name to attempt to come up with an alibi defense is essentially speculative and fishing for information without a real goal. It doesn’t overcome Roviaro. United States v. Noble, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161139 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 21, 2018).

Plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest case against police officers is time barred. Everybody else is absolutely immune or not subject to suit either. Kennedy v. City of Philadelphia, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27081 (3d Cir. Sep. 21, 2018).*

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Request for CI’s identity was speculative venture here and denied

NYTimes: Just Don’t Call It Privacy

NYTimes: Just Don’t Call It Privacy by Natasha Singer:

Amazon, Google and Twitter executives are heading to Congress. Should legislators give consumers control over the data companies have on them?

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on NYTimes: Just Don’t Call It Privacy

PA: Emergency aid entry into home doesn’t permit reentry for accurate recordkeeping

A warrantless entry into a house under the emergency aid exception does not permit a reentry for administrative tasks. Accurate record keeping can’t be a justification for a warrantless entry. Commonwealth v. Wilmer, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 4917 (Sep. 21, 2018) (dissent):
Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on PA: Emergency aid entry into home doesn’t permit reentry for accurate recordkeeping

CA2: On GVR after Carpenter, Second Circuit also holds GFE applies to 2011 SCA order

Defendant’s CSLI case was GVR’d by SCOTUS after Carpenter. His SCA order was issued in 2011. “Prior to Carpenter, all six courts of appeal to have considered the question had held that the government acquisition of electronic data from third parties was not subject to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. See United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2017); United States v. Thompson, 866 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2017); United States v. Graham, 824 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2016) (en banc); United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016), rev’d, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018); United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc); In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013).” Davis good faith applies, and the CSLI is not suppressed. United States v. Chambers, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27073 (2d Cir. Sep. 21, 2018). [By the opinion, the defense tried valiantly to overcome the good faith exception, but it was necessarily doomed.]

Posted in Cell site location information, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA2: On GVR after Carpenter, Second Circuit also holds GFE applies to 2011 SCA order

CA3: Govt agreed that SW materials could be released in terrorism case, but not plea agreement; no abuse of discretion in keeping plea papers sealed

In a terrorism case, the government agreed that search warrant materials could be unsealed, but resisted disclosure of plea agreements and plea related materials. They were presumptively open records at common law and the First Amendment, but the government made a sufficient showing to keep them under seal because of national security concerns. The district court’s order not unsealing was not an abuse of discretion. United States v. Thomas, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27079 (3d Cir. Sep. 21, 2018).

Defense counsel didn’t move to suppress a laptop that, in another case, he moved to suppress and the state dismissed. The appeals court doesn’t ascribe any meaning to the dismissal as being related. At the post-conviction hearing, defendant didn’t prove anything about the likelihood of success of the search. Moreover, he used part of the product of the search in his own case. The court finds no prejudice because of the strength of the evidence. Phillips v. State, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 716 (Sep. 21, 2018).* [The defense using part of the evidence from the search could have been a strategic move on defense counsel’s part. Just because you can move to suppress doesn’t mean that you should.]

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA3: Govt agreed that SW materials could be released in terrorism case, but not plea agreement; no abuse of discretion in keeping plea papers sealed

Cal.4th: Retroactive conversion of felony MJ conviction to civil infraction didn’t require lawfully collected DNA be purged from database

California’s retroactive conversion of personal use felony marijuana convictions to civil infractions does not warrant removal of defendant’s DNA from the system. People v. Laird, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 841 (4th Dist. Aug. 30, 2018), ordered published Sep. 21, 2018.

Defendant didn’t have standing in a house under construction. The record was unclear who owned it, and it might have been his grandmother, but the condition of the house was such that nobody was living there at the time. On the merits, the search was with exigent circumstances of a burglary in progress. United States v. Womack, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161537 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 19, 2018).*

Posted in DNA, Emergency / exigency, Standing | Comments Off on Cal.4th: Retroactive conversion of felony MJ conviction to civil infraction didn’t require lawfully collected DNA be purged from database

E.D.N.Y.: Vehicle occupant’s “dipping motion” during stop was hiding something and RS

A vehicle occupant making a “dipping motion” when a stop occurs like they’re putting something on the floor or under the seat, either contraband or a weapon, is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Roberts, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161968 (E.D. N.Y. Sep. 21, 2018).

Defendant’s conduct during his traffic stop justified an arrest, and that permitted the officer to use more restraint on him. United States v. Harrison, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161910 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 21, 2018).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Vehicle occupant’s “dipping motion” during stop was hiding something and RS

N.D.Ga.: While the question is close, consent was voluntary on the totality; it was asked for, not coerced

Officers were in the house and finally asked for permission to search. While the question is close, the court finds consent was voluntary on the totality. United States v. Avellaneda-Dimas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161865 (N.D. Ga. July 24, 2018),* adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161594 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 21, 2018)*:
Continue reading →

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: While the question is close, consent was voluntary on the totality; it was asked for, not coerced

WaPo: A serial rapist eluded police for years. Then they searched a genealogy site.

WaPo: A serial rapist eluded police for years. Then they searched a genealogy site. by Eli Rosenberg:
Continue reading →

Posted in DNA, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on WaPo: A serial rapist eluded police for years. Then they searched a genealogy site.

CA6: Dist.Ct. erroneously suppressed over two kgs of heroin; the affidavit for SW showed a reasonable inference drugs would be found at home and GFE applied

The district court suppressed over two kilos of heroin finding that the affidavit for search warrant didn’t show probable cause and nexus to the defendant’s house. The Sixth Circuit reversed on both the probable cause and nexus issue and it found that the officers reasonably relied on the warrant for application of the good faith exception. There was a reasonable inference that drugs would be found in the home of a reputed drug dealer. United States v. McCoy, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (6th Cir. Sep. 20, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Nexus, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA6: Dist.Ct. erroneously suppressed over two kgs of heroin; the affidavit for SW showed a reasonable inference drugs would be found at home and GFE applied