S.D.Tex.: Ct credits def’s version; on govt’s: “Hypothetical could-haves or would-haves simply will not do.” Govt conceded gamma ray scan was search.

Defendant was stopped at the I-35 immigration check point near Laredo. The video is soundless and 14 seconds long. The officer’s version doesn’t seem possible within the time of the video, but the defendant’s does. The officer had the defendant pull his truck forward for a gamma ray inspection (“VACIS”) which the government concedes is a search of his truck. The court credits the defendant’s version and finds the consent invalid. “Hypothetical could-haves or would-haves simply will not do.” United States v. Cordes, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115441 (S.D. Tex. July 11, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: Ct credits def’s version; on govt’s: “Hypothetical could-haves or would-haves simply will not do.” Govt conceded gamma ray scan was search.

Lexology: Can the government unlock your iPhone by forcing you to provide your fingerprints?

Lexology: Can the government unlock your iPhone by forcing you to provide your fingerprints? by Duane Morris LLP.

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on Lexology: Can the government unlock your iPhone by forcing you to provide your fingerprints?

D.D.C.: Random drug testing of day care employees unreasonable

Random suspicionless government mandated drug testing of day care employees unreasonable because there is no compelling governmental interest. Ass’n of Indep. Sch. of Greater Wash. v. District of Columbia, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70146 (D.D.C. April 20, 2018), reconsideration denied, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115066 (D.D.C. July 11, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Random drug testing of day care employees unreasonable

The Verge: California malls have been feeding license plate data to a national network linked with ICE

The Verge: California malls have been feeding license plate data to a national network linked with ICE by Russell Brandom:

A number of California malls appear to be feeding data back to a national license-plate reader network linked to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Ratting out your own customers. How hospitable.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on The Verge: California malls have been feeding license plate data to a national network linked with ICE

E.D.Va.: Manafort storage building search sustained: Employee with free access had apparent authority to consent to entry

The FBI reasonably relied on a person with apparent authority to consent to an entry into a storage locker to look around. The consenter had free access to the storage room as an employee, and the employer-employee relationship can permit consent. Common authority does not require the consenter actually keep things of his or her own in the storage unit. The entry was valid. The look resulted in seeing labels on boxes and then obtaining a search warrant for the boxes for “Records relating to violations of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314, 5322(a) (Failure to File a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts), 22 U.S.C. § 618 (Foreign Agent Registration Act), and 26 U.S.C. § 7206(a) (Filing a False Tax Return), including: ….” Aside from the look, even discounting all of that, the independent source doctrine would have permitted the entry based on the face of the affidavit for the search warrant, and there would be no valid ground for suppressing the evidence recovered under the search warrant. United States v. Manafort, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115223 (E.D. Va. July 9, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Independent source | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Manafort storage building search sustained: Employee with free access had apparent authority to consent to entry

CA3: FTCA doesn’t apply to TSA screeners

TSA screeners are not “investigative or law enforcement officers” for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Therefore, they are covered by the discretionary function exemption. Pellegrino v. United States Transp. Sec. Admin., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18821 (3d Cir. July 11, 2018). The court previously held in Vanderklok v. United States, 868 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2017), there was no Bivens action for the same reason.

There was probable cause for plaintiff’s search and his arrest so his malicious prosecution claim fails. Wright v. Watson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18834 (11th Cir. July 11, 2018).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Airport searches | Comments Off on CA3: FTCA doesn’t apply to TSA screeners

OH & MO: Erratic driving justifies stop

Defendant’s stop was justified, and, during the stop, probable cause developed that he was operating under the influence. State v. Dallman, 2018-Ohio-2670, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2890 (12th Dist. July 9, 2018).*

Defendant’s erratic driving of swerving within his lane and driving 10 mph under the speed limit justified his stop. State v. Byers, 2018 Mo. App. LEXIS 762 (July 10, 2018).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH & MO: Erratic driving justifies stop

OH11: Arrest warrant and knowing def home authorized entry to arrest

Officers had an arrest warrant for the defendant and they knew he was home. That was justification to enter. State v. Weaver, 2018-Ohio-2675, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2898 (11th Dist. July 9, 2018).

Defendant doesn’t allege any facts that his stop was unreasonable, and it was based on two controlled buys. There’s nothing anywhere in the record that even suggests the stop was unreasonable. Therefore, defense counsel can’t have been ineffective. Thomas v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114452 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2018).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on OH11: Arrest warrant and knowing def home authorized entry to arrest

N.D.Fla.: Def consented to providing pass code to his phone when police seized his phone pending getting SW

“The defendant delivered a package to a post office for mailing. A postal inspector caused the package to be held overnight and then, with the defendant’s consent, opened it. Finding cash and pills that appeared to be illicit, the postal inspector seized the defendant’s cellular phone, asked for and received from the defendant the pass code for unlocking the phone, obtained a warrant 12 days later, and caused a forensic search to be made of the phone’s contents. [¶] Following an evidentiary hearing, this order holds that there was probable cause to seize the package, that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of the package, that the defendant voluntarily provided the pass code, that holding the phone for 12 days before obtaining a search warrant was reasonable—though just barely—and that the search warrant was valid. This order sets out the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and denies the defendant’s motion to suppress.” United States v. Hill, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113124 (N.D. Fla. July 9, 2018).

Posted in Cell phones, Consent | Comments Off on N.D.Fla.: Def consented to providing pass code to his phone when police seized his phone pending getting SW

PA: Def called police about a burglary then consented to entry to investigate

Calling police to a suspected burglary in your own house tells the police to investigate, and then defendant consented to an entry to investigate. Commonwealth v. McCleary, 2018 PA Super 201 (July 10, 2018).

Defendant insisted his medical marijuana grow was in compliance with Michigan law, so he consented to show the officers. United States v. Blomquist, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113230 (W.D. Mich. July 9, 2018).*

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on PA: Def called police about a burglary then consented to entry to investigate

TPM: Manafort Loses Fight Over Storage Unit Search In Virginia Case

TPM: Manafort Loses Fight Over Storage Unit Search In Virginia Case by Tierney Sneed (opinion in story):
Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Consent | Comments Off on TPM: Manafort Loses Fight Over Storage Unit Search In Virginia Case

CA9: Def’s 22 minute detention was reasonable because he wouldn’t properly ID himself

Defendant’s 22-minute detention was reasonable because he was lying about who he was, and officers had a right to know. United States v. Thompson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18603 (9th Cir. July 9, 2018).

Defendant’s vehicle was outside a house where a high risk warrant was being served. Officers knew the car was connected to the house because an occupant came out to the car twice during pre-raid surveillance. That was at least reasonable suspicion for further inquiry. United States v. Freeman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113459 (W.D. Mo. July 9, 2018).

Posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: Def’s 22 minute detention was reasonable because he wouldn’t properly ID himself

CA3: NJ bail reform act doesn’t violate 4A or 8A

New Jersey’s bail reform act which shifts emphasis away from money bail to other restraints and conditions to assure release and return to court does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Not all restraints are unreasonable, given a probable cause finding on the defendant in the first place. Also, the court doesn’t accept that all electronic monitoring is unreasonable. Holland v. Rosen, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18554 (3d Cir. July 9, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA3: NJ bail reform act doesn’t violate 4A or 8A

Bloomberg Law: INSIGHT: Cracking Open a Can of Worms: Why Carpenter v. United States May Not Be the Privacy Decision That Was Needed … or Wanted

Bloomberg Law: INSIGHT: Cracking Open a Can of Worms: Why Carpenter v. United States May Not Be the Privacy Decision That Was Needed … or Wanted by Chris Ott

Posted in SCOTUS | Comments Off on Bloomberg Law: INSIGHT: Cracking Open a Can of Worms: Why Carpenter v. United States May Not Be the Privacy Decision That Was Needed … or Wanted

OR: State can’t be compelled to issue SW to Google to help defense case

Defendant was accused of the rape of J. The defense learned that she kept a journal on Google, and the defense sought to get it by subpoena from Google under the Stored Communications Act. There were hearings and the state was ordered to help. Ultimately, Google refused without a search warrant. The case went to trial without it, and defendant was convicted. J testified and she testified she destroyed the computer. The trial court did all that it could do but Google refused, and the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the case. The state could not be compelled to issue a search warrant for the defense. [There is a helpful explanation of the SCA.] State v. Bray, 363 Ore. 226 (July 5, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Stored Communications Act | Comments Off on OR: State can’t be compelled to issue SW to Google to help defense case

D.Minn.: USMJ’s order to disclose all CIs is overbroad; not if they aren’t trial witnesses

The USMJ’s order to disclose all information about the informants was overbroad because it included informant’s who are not trial witnesses. It is limited to those who are trial witnesses. United States v. Bias, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112605 (D. Minn. July 6, 2018).

The court credits the officers’ testimony that the defendant committed a traffic violation for driving left of center. Defendant’s efforts to show vegetation growth made it necessary was inconclusive at best. The officers had reasonable suspicion to continue the stop because of evasive driving when they saw the officer and a tip that the vehicle would be carrying drugs. United States v. Flynn, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112633 (M.D. Ala. July 6, 2018).*

Posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Minn.: USMJ’s order to disclose all CIs is overbroad; not if they aren’t trial witnesses

N.D.Cal.: Cell-site simulator requires SW; state law doesn’t permit federal officers to execute state SW

(1) The government’s disclaiming a critical fact in the affidavit for search warrant undermines the probable cause vitiating the warrant. (2) “Use of a cell-site simulator requires a warrant. See United States v. Ellis, 270 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1141-46 (N.D. Cal. 2017); United States v. Lambis, 197 F. Supp. 3d 606, 609-11 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Jones v. United States, 168 A.3d 703, 711-17 (D.C. 2017); see also Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, slip op. at 1-2, 16-23 (U.S. June 22, 2018).” (3) A state search warrant directed to state officials did not permit a federal officer to execute it. (4) Even if none of these errors was enough for the good faith exception to apply, the totality doesn’t permit it. United States v. Artis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112696 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2018).

“Although the April 5 and April 7 warrants were plagued by various problems, one defect deserves special attention and is therefore the subject of this separate published ruling: under California law, federal law enforcement officers are not permitted to execute search warrants issued by California state judges.” United States v. Artis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112697 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2018).

Posted in Cell site simulators, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Cell-site simulator requires SW; state law doesn’t permit federal officers to execute state SW

D.Nev.: While def’s firearm was suppressed, it can come in by impeachment if he opens the door at trial

Defendant’s firearm was previously suppressed. If at trial he opens the door to the gun, it can be referred to by proper impeachment. United States v. Casarez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112536 (D. Nev. July 6, 2018).

Defendant was granted a hearing as to what was heard in “plain hearing” for a motion to suppress, and he subpoenaed the AUSA. The subpoena is quashed for failure to comply with 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21-16.29, and no offer of proof as to what is needed. For all it appears, the AUSA is subpoenaed merely because he is the prosecutor. United States v. Carey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112131 (S.D.Cal. July 6, 2018).*

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Nev.: While def’s firearm was suppressed, it can come in by impeachment if he opens the door at trial

WI: SI to arrest warrant issued in error but relied on in good faith would not be suppressed

Police were dispatched to a 911 call, and, on the way, discovered an arrest warrant for the subject of the call. By the time they got there, the 911 call was off, but they arrested on the warrant. It turned out the warrant shouldn’t have been issued, but it was valid on its face. Defendant was arrested and the search incident produced meth. The trial court suppressed, but the Supreme Court reverses. “Our overarching inquiry in this case is whether the reviewing court erred in granting Kerr’s motion to suppress. Fundamental to our analysis is whether evidence discovered during a search incident to arrest is properly suppressed under the exclusionary rule when there is no police misconduct. We conclude that suppression is not appropriate because the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, and there is no police misconduct here. Neither judicial integrity nor judicial error is a standalone basis for suppression under the exclusionary rule. We therefore conclude that the reviewing court’s grant of Kerr’s motion to suppress on the basis of judicial integrity is error.” State v. Kerr, 2018 WI 87, 2018 Wisc. LEXIS 313 (July 6, 2018).

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception | Comments Off on WI: SI to arrest warrant issued in error but relied on in good faith would not be suppressed

NH: CP search warrant for defendant’s phone and laptop completely lacked PC

Defendant was found asleep in his car in a Walmart parking lot with his pants down after having apparently masturbated to adult porn images on his computer or phone. The discussion with the officers gave no reason to believe defendant was into child pornography or had it on his computer or phone. Thus, nothing in the affidavit for the search warrant for his devices showed probable cause to believe that child pornography would be found. State v. Norman, 2018 N.H. LEXIS 100 (July 6, 2018) (decided under state constitution and not the Fourth Amendment, but there’s no reason to believe a different outcome; it wasn’t even a close enough call for the good faith exception.)

Police received a call that defendant was harassing a woman. He ran off, leaving his car. The police got there and talked to her son; the woman and man had been dating. She believed he might have naked pictures of her daughter on his phone. She reached into his car and turned it off, and she saw his phone and took it. She looked for the pictures she’d seen before, but said they were “deeper into the phone.” She gave it to the police, and this was a private search. They didn’t ask for it. United States v. Highbull, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18399 (8th Cir. July 6, 2018).

Posted in Private search, Probable cause | Comments Off on NH: CP search warrant for defendant’s phone and laptop completely lacked PC