TX8: Hospital can’t be sued under § 1983 for medical negligence and battery in conducting intensive body, pelvic, and rectal searches for CBP that produced nothing at all

Plaintiff, an El Paso resident, was stopped at the border coming into El Paso from visiting a friend and subjected to several searches for drugs, including taking her to the appellant hospital for x-rays and a pelvic exam. Nothing was found and she was released. She sued the hospital for medical negligence in the guise of a § 1983 action. Texas law doesn’t permit it. Even the assault and battery claims fail. Texas Tech Univ. Health Scis. Center-El Paso v. Bustillos, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 4259 (Tex. App. – El Paso June 13, 2018).* The whole thing she was subjected to was, frankly, ridiculous and the pelvic and rectal searches were completely unnecessary and unreasonable:
Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Body searches, Border search | Comments Off on TX8: Hospital can’t be sued under § 1983 for medical negligence and battery in conducting intensive body, pelvic, and rectal searches for CBP that produced nothing at all

SC: Failure to register offense didn’t justify electronic monitoring condition under Grady

Defendant was convicted of a sex offense in 1979. In 2011 he was convicted of a sex offender registration offense. An electronic monitoring condition was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment on this record under Grady v. North Carolina because this is not a sex offense. State v. Ross, 2018 S.C. LEXIS 73 (June 13, 2018).

Defendant was on Georgia parole, and there was no reasonable suspicion for a parole search. He signed a search waiver that said he could be searched anytime. United States v. Spence, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99128 (N.D. Ga. April 20, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98571 (N.D. Ga. June 12, 2018).*

Handcuffing the only person present in an apartment when the police enter with a search warrant is not an arrest. The search led to probable cause to arrest him. People v. Henderson, 2018 NY Slip Op 04449, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4363 (1st Dept. June 14, 2018).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, GPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on SC: Failure to register offense didn’t justify electronic monitoring condition under Grady

D.Idaho: Consent irrelevant to a parole search

Defendant was reasonably subjected to a parole search, and withdrawal of his consent was irrelevant. United States v. Perales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99191 (D. Idaho June 11, 2018).

The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for being a minor in possession and public intoxication because of inability to walk. City of Missoula v. Kroschel, 2018 MT 142 (June 12, 2018).*

In an unnecessarily long opinion, leaving one’s computer open on a peer to peer network is a waiver of one’s expectation of privacy in the computer. United States v. Hoeffener, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99149 (E.D. Mo. May 9, 2018).*

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Consent irrelevant to a parole search

The New American: Do Tech-sniffing K9s Violate the Fourth Amendment?

The New American: Do Tech-sniffing K9s Violate the Fourth Amendment? by Joe Wolverton, II:

For several years, police and the FBI have been secretly training dogs to sniff out thumb drives, SD cards, and other small electronic devices. These special K9 dogs have been used to detect tiny technology in order to reveal criminal conduct stored on these digital devices.

1) It’s not a secret. I’ve known about it for over two years. Tech equipment gives off an odor, too, and it increases with age of the product.
2) If a drug sniffing dog in an area without a reasonable expectation of privacy is not a “search,” how is this?
3) The sniff only reveals the item, it sure doesn’t search it. They’re especially useful in prisons and jails where cell phones are contraband.

Posted in Dog sniff | Comments Off on The New American: Do Tech-sniffing K9s Violate the Fourth Amendment?

Wired: Senators Demand Answers from Amazon on Echo’s Snooping Habits

Wired: Senators Demand Answers from Amazon on Echo’s Snooping Habits by Issie Lapowsky:

In the letter, Republican senator Jeff Flake and Democratic senator Chris Coons, who serve respectively as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, ask Bezos to explain how exactly the Amazon Echo device listens to and stores users’ voices.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Wired: Senators Demand Answers from Amazon on Echo’s Snooping Habits

D.Ariz.: Long-term pole camera surveillance over the fence surrounding defendant’s junkyard violated his REP

Long-term pole camera surveillance over the fence surrounding defendant’s junkyard violated his reasonable expectation of privacy where the average person couldn’t see over the fence merely walking by. The court differentiates the flyover cases because long-term video surveillance is unusual and not a normal occurrence. United States v. Castro-Valenzuela, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99102 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2018) (R&R):
Continue reading →

Posted in Pole cameras, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: Long-term pole camera surveillance over the fence surrounding defendant’s junkyard violated his REP

MN: 4A claim can’t be brought for first time in post-conviction proceeding

Defendant’s post-conviction claim that the search violated the Fourth Amendment was waived for post-conviction purposes because he had to file it in the trial court before his case concluded. Fox v. State, 2018 Minn. LEXIS 308 (June 13, 2018).

The stop was based on reasonable suspicion of following too close. The officer’s looking at the VIN was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Phongprasert, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98361 (D. N.M. June 12, 2018).*

Admission of jail calls didn’t violate the Indiana wiretap statute. This is an appeal of a small claims court judgment. Wynne v. Burris, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 207 (June 13, 2018).*

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on MN: 4A claim can’t be brought for first time in post-conviction proceeding

TX: Even if suppression motion is made in trial, state bears burden on a warrantless search

Whether a motion to suppress is filed pretrial or during trial, if the search is shown to be warrantless, the burden shifts to the state to prove the legality of the warrantless search. White v. State, 2018 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 351 (June 13, 2018).

The trial court found exigent circumstances based on many factors [some of which seem irrelevant] that there was a quantity of marijuana about to leave the residence for a drug deal, and that justified the police “protective sweep” to freeze the premises to get a search warrant. The court of appeals affirmed. State v. Benvenuto, 2018-Ohio-2242, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2431 (3d Dist. June 11, 2018).*

There was no viable alternative to towing and inventorying the vehicle which would be left on the street, so the alleged illegal search was valid by inevitable discovery. United States v. Bowie, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15879 (9th Cir. June 13, 2018).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Emergency / exigency, Inevitable discovery | Comments Off on TX: Even if suppression motion is made in trial, state bears burden on a warrantless search

SFGate: Do Amazon’s Movement-Tracking Wristbands Violate Workers’ Privacy Rights?

SFGate: Do Amazon’s Movement-Tracking Wristbands Violate Workers’ Privacy Rights? by Dariush Adli

A look at the legal precedents shows Amazon could get into trouble with its newly patented devices.
Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on SFGate: Do Amazon’s Movement-Tracking Wristbands Violate Workers’ Privacy Rights?

The Economist: How data-driven policing threatens human freedom

The Economist: How data-driven policing threatens human freedom

An excerpt and interview with Andrew Ferguson, author of “The Rise of Big Data Policing”

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on The Economist: How data-driven policing threatens human freedom

NYTimes: Apple to Close iPhone Security Hole That Law Enforcement Uses to Crack Devices

NYTimes: Apple to Close iPhone Security Hole That Law Enforcement Uses to Crack Devices by Jack Nicas:

Apple has long positioned the iPhone as a secure device that only its owner can open. That has led to battles with law enforcement officials who want to get information off them, including a well-publicized showdown with the F.B.I. in 2016 after Apple refused to help open the locked iPhone of a mass killer.

Posted in Cell phones, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on NYTimes: Apple to Close iPhone Security Hole That Law Enforcement Uses to Crack Devices

New Yorker: Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy?

New Yorker: Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy? by Louis Menand (magazine title: “Nowhere to Hide”):

Big Tech wants to exploit our personal data, and the government wants to keep tabs on us. But “privacy” isn’t what’s really at stake.

Posted in Surveillance technology, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on New Yorker: Why Do We Care So Much About Privacy?

MO: Reading SW to def at execution is not “custodial interrogation”

Police entered defendant’s house with a search warrant. Defendant was handcuffed and the contents of the search warrant were read to her. Her responses were not custodial interrogation when she admitted where drugs were in the house. State v. Craig, 2018 Mo. App. LEXIS 611 (June 12, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off on MO: Reading SW to def at execution is not “custodial interrogation”

S.D.N.Y.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to revocation of supervised release

The exclusionary rule does not apply to revocation of supervised release proceedings. United States v. Hightower, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98320 (S.D. N.Y. June 12, 2018).

The renter of the rental car was in it, and he voluntarily consented to the search of the car. United States v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97504 (D. Neb. June 11, 2018).*

Police received an anonymous call of reckless driving, and the officers found the vehicle and watched for 20-25 seconds, and there were multiple indications that the car was operating recklessly. Thus, the stop was valid. State v. Yallah, 2018-Ohio-2251, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2433 (11th Cir. June 11, 2018).*

Posted in Consent, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to revocation of supervised release

SC: Of course def didn’t intend to leave his cell phone at the scene of a burglary, but he did, and that’s still abandonment

Defendant lost his cell phone at the scene of a burglary. The court grants the fundamental premise that a cell phone has the “privacies of life,” but his unintentional abandonment of the phone doesn’t preclude the government from searching it without a search warrant. The officers guess his password: 1-2-3-4. Brown v. State, 2018 S.C. LEXIS 75 (June 13, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones | Comments Off on SC: Of course def didn’t intend to leave his cell phone at the scene of a burglary, but he did, and that’s still abandonment

CT: Seeing sawed off shotgun through van window justified opening it up to seize it

The officers here saw a sawed off shotgun through the windows of defendant’s van, and it was not unreasonable to use the key fob to open the door to seize it. State v. Ortiz, 2018 Conn. App. LEXIS 235 (June 12, 2018)

Plaintiff’s arrest in her own home for telling officers to “get the fuck out” when they couldn’t explain how they got in was without probable cause and the officers had to know it. She owned the place and woke up to noise, came in the kitchen and there were police talking to her houseguests. No qualified immunity for the arrest or manhandling her in her arrest. The first is well settled; the force necessary and then used was a jury question. Olson v. Stewart, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15727 (11th Cir. June 12, 2018).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CT: Seeing sawed off shotgun through van window justified opening it up to seize it

NE: A pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draw would not be excluded under GFE

A blood draw that predated Birchfield was valid under the good faith exception. “Because the good faith exception applies, the district court erred in reversing Hatfield’s conviction.” State v. Hatfield, 300 Neb. 152 (June 8, 2018).

Two controlled buys by the CI was probable cause. In a search warrant for drugs, looking in a backpack was a reasonable place to search. A gun found there wouldn’t be suppressed. Omission of a detail of a 2014 prior drug deal wasn’t material for Franks purposes. United States v. Norris, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96458 (D. Mass. June 8, 2018).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on NE: A pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draw would not be excluded under GFE

S.D.Ill.: SW affidavit doesn’t have to be labeled one to be one

A search warrant affidavit doesn’t have to be headed “affidavit” to be one, and the attachments are considered sworn to if referred to in the body. The affidavit’s typo of having the 16th as the date of the offense when it was the 15th is not a constitutional error because it was obvious what was meant. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97668 (S.D. Ill. June 11, 2018).

Defendant’s post-conviction Franks claim fails for not showing intentional disregard or materiality. Djenasevic v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98527 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018).*

Posted in Franks doctrine, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: SW affidavit doesn’t have to be labeled one to be one

E.D.Ky.: Omission of exculpatory information is far less likely to be a Franks issue

Omission of exculpatory information is far less likely to be a Franks issue because (1) it doesn’t often matter and (2) it would lead to endless forays into what is exculpatory. Defendant fails to make a Franks preliminary showing. United States v. Schank, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97275 (E.D. Ky. June 11, 2018):
Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Omission of exculpatory information is far less likely to be a Franks issue

N.D.Ga.: Declining to interact with an officer is not RS

Defendant’s declining to interact with the officer and trying to avoid him is not reasonable suspicion because people have a right to do that. United States v. Brown, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97602 (N.D. Ga. May 10, 2018).

Defendant abandoned cell phones, one in a car and another in a field. United States v. Antoine, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96403 (N.D. W.Va. June 8, 2018).*

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Declining to interact with an officer is not RS