The two CI’s stories were weak in themselves, but the police succeeded in corroborating enough to rise to probable cause. State v. Matheson, 2018 Utah App. LEXIS 66 (Apr. 13, 2018).*
Hitting the lane dividing line was justification for the stop, and he didn’t have to cross it. United States v. Brown, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028 (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).*
The search warrant for child pornography on defendant wasn’t stale. State v. Baker, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 681 (La. App. 2 Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).*
Police set up a perimeter a distance around the scene of a home invasion looking for the car involved, and defendant’s car was stopped. This checkpoint stop was valid under Illinois v. Lidster. United States v. Gilmore, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61464 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 11, 2018):
Continue reading
“A mysterious parcel package was intercepted while en route to be delivered. It contained approximately ten pounds of marijuana. Someone sent the package. Someone was presumably going to pick it up. The principal question this appeal presents is whether investigating detectives had a reasonable suspicion that James Johns, III, was somehow involved with this contraband when they detained him in the driveway of the package’s destination. We hold they did not.” “The only connections the circuit court could draw between the package of marijuana that precipitated this investigation and Mr. Johns at the time he was detained were his arrival at a duplex where marijuana was to be delivered and the prior actions of a person Mr. Johns accompanied. But it is well settled that one’s mere presence in a place of potential criminal activity does not, by itself, furnish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000).” Johns v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 5001 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 13, 2018).
The arrest was based on probable cause to believe marijuana would be found. The existence of a medical marijuana card is only a defense to the holder, and it doesn’t undermine probable cause. Assenberg v. Whitman County, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9159 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2018).
Grant of a motion to suppress that wasn’t put into writing wasn’t appealable by the state. State v. Martinez, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2590 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg Apr. 12, 2018).*
The officer properly advised the defendant of the right to refuse an alcohol test. “The officer neither told her that she was required to take the test, nor misled her as to the consequences of taking or refusing the test. We therefore conclude her agreement was voluntary.” Diaz v. Bernini, 2018 Ariz. App. LEXIS 59 (Apr. 12, 2018).*
A Facebook warrant wasn’t overbroad because it involved a conspiracy and it was thus more difficult to describe what exactly was sought. As to a dwelling warrant, an error in the description of the thing to be seized as a firearm when it was really a weapon of mass destruction being sought wasn’t enough to exclude. A second warrant wasn’t based on the product of the first, and thus the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn’t apply. United States v. Allen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60247 (D. Kan. Apr. 10, 2018). As to the firearm description:
Continue reading
Abel: Standing there like that you reminded me of the man that used to come to our house when I was young. My father used to say: “watch this man”. So I did. Every time he came. And never once did he do anything remarkable.
Donovan: And I remind you of him?
Abel: This one time, I was at the age of your son, our house was overrun by partisan border guards. Dozens of them. My father was beaten, my mother was beaten, and this man, my father’s friend, he was beaten. And I watched this man. Every time they hit him, he stood back up again. So they hit him harder. Still he got back to his feet. I think because of this they stopped the beating. They let him live. “Stoikiy muzhik”. I remember them saying. Which sort of means like uh, “standing man” … standing man …
The Hill: We need a new law to protect lawyer-client communications by Alan Dershowitz:
The Fifth Amendment merely prohibits the use of illegally obtained self-incriminatory information at the defendant’s criminal trial. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unlawful intrusions into the privacy of any American, and the Sixth Amendment implicitly prohibits violations of the lawyer-client privilege.
Atlantic: The Principle of Professional Law Enforcement Is Now on the Line by Benjamin Wittes:
If the president can, with impunity, remove the deputy attorney general, the very notion that law enforcement has a higher function than serving power becomes a lie.
Atlantic: Drug Use Is Detectable on Your Fingerprints by Rod McCullom
Law.com: Why Some Judicial Nominees Struggle When Asked About ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ by Tony Mauro:
For some nominees, the concern is that by answering explicitly, they would be viewed as biased. For others, the decisions they are being asked to embrace are too controversial to touch.
“We conclude that, contrary to Combs’ assertions, there is no evidence that Davis intentionally or recklessly omitted material information from the affidavit. In fact, Davis’s testimony at the suppression hearing shows that the facts not included in the affidavit would actually have strengthened probable cause rather than defeating it.” Therefore, there was probable cause. United States v. Combs, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8970 (4th Cir. Apr. 10, 2018).
The CI was interrogated in chambers by the judge, and his story satisfied Aguilar-Spinelli. People v. Jackson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02505, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2483 (3d Dept. Apr. 12, 2018).*
“Sweeney neither challenged the finding of untimeliness before the district court, nor does he now argue that his delay in filing the motion to suppress was excused by good cause. As such, because of his waiver, we need not address the merits of Sweeney’s appeal.” United States v. Sweeney, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9052 (1st Cir. Apr. 11, 2018).
Defendant was a probationer, and he had a reduced expectation of privacy. There was reasonable suspicion for the search, and it was reasonable. State v. Conley, 2018 MT 83, 2018 Mont. LEXIS 108 (Apr. 10, 2018).*
Tenants of an apartment complex had a reasonable expectation of privacy from being brought into a discovery dispute. They had a right not to have their privacy invaded. Castillo v. LA Props. Heffesse LLC, 2018 Cal. Super. LEXIS 119 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles County Apr. 12, 2018)*:
Continue reading
No, the attorney-client privilege isn’t dead, and neither is the crime fraud exception.
ABAJ: How will prosecutors handle privileged documents from Michael Cohen raids? by Stephanie Francis Ward:
Continue reading
The Fourth Amendment does not require that a search warrant for computers specifically identify them [because that’s not possible]. A search warrant to seize computers permits their search under Rule 41. United States v. Beal, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9056 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2018):
Continue reading
Driving on a suspended license does not justify a search incident of his vehicle. Even worse, however, there was no justification for the arrest anyway. He was interrogated while handcuffed and admitted that there was heroin in his shoe. There was no probable cause for the arrest or search. State v. White, 2018-Ohio-1339, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1469 (7th Dist. Apr. 9, 2018).
The officers did not unreasonably prolong the stop in violation of Rodriguez. United States v. Clinton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61489 (N.D. W.Va. Apr. 11, 2018).*
There was no probable cause for issuance of the search warrant, but it wasn’t “so lacking” in probable cause because there was at least something. “The officers, therefore, acted in good faith in executing the warrant because, although the affidavit fell short of the probable-cause standard, it contains ‘a minimally sufficient nexus between the illegal activity and the place to be searched.’” United States v. Mallory, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60468 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 10, 2018).*
The informant’s information about probationer’s drug dealing was sufficient reasonable suspicion on the totality for a search. Campbell v. State, 2018 Del. LEXIS 155 (Apr. 6, 2018).*
The government argued no standing. “Despite being on notice that standing was an issue, Defendant did not introduce evidence at the suppression hearing to establish his relationship to the property searched in this case.” Going to the merits anyway, defendant got out of his pickup truck when he was stopped, and there was a baggie of meth protruding from his pocket. It’s evidentiary value was immediately apparent to the officer. United States v. Morales, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60649 (D. Neb. Apr. 10, 2018).
There was enough connection between defendant and a drug trafficking operation to be probable cause to search defendant’s house. “[T]he Affidavit does not solely rest on the agent’s assertion that evidence of Bennett’s drug dealing activity is based on the agent’s knowledge from training and experience.” Even so, the good faith exception applies, and the search is still valid. United States v. Bennett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60504 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018).*
Defendants have no standing to challenge the seizure of CSLI on telephone numbers they don’t complain are theirs. United States v. Pizarro, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60539 (S.D. N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018).*
Police seizure of an SD card was by consent by somebody with joint authority over it, and the USMJ’s R&R recommending suppression is rejected. A child victim’s statement was an independent source for issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Sukhtipyaroge, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60632 (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2018).*
2255 petitioner can’t raise his search and seizure claim via post-conviction relief where there was no effort to pursue the issue in the case on the merits. Even if he could, he’d lose on the merits of the search because there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. Saldana v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62235 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 12, 2018).
Officers stopped defendant based on a report that the occupants had passed a counterfeit bill. In the car in plain view was another. This was probable cause for a full search of the car. Robino v. State, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2498 (Tex. App. – Texarkana Apr. 10, 2018).*
