WaPo: Justice Department asks Supreme Court to moot Microsoft email case, citing new law by Ellen Nakashima:
Now that Congress has made clear that a U.S. search warrant covers emails stored overseas, the Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to moot a case involving a data demand issued to Microsoft for a drug-trafficking suspect’s emails held in Ireland.
Motherboard: Mass Surveillance Memes Show Our Collective Anxiety Over Government Spying by Mack DeGeurin:
Surveillance memes are everywhere because it feels like surveillance is everywhere.
NPR: Police Shootings Stir Outrage Among Some, But Not The Supreme Court by Nina Totenburg:
The U.S. Supreme Court has again stepped into the bitter public turmoil over police shootings of civilians, ruling Monday that an Arizona police officer is shielded from being sued for shooting a woman in her own front yard.
WSJ: Artificial Intelligence Could Soon Enhance Real-Time Police Surveillance by Shibani Mahtani and Zusha Elinson:
CHICAGO—Several technology companies are working with police departments across the U.S. to develop the capability to add artificial intelligence to video surveillance and body cameras that could identify faces in real time, potentially expanding the reach of police surveillance.
Volokh Conspiracy: The Supreme Court’s Continuing Immunity Crusade by Will Baude
A few thoughts on today’s summary reversal in Kisela v. Hughes.
Continue reading
“A [DNA] search warrant that mistakenly includes an incorrect person’s name does not lack
sufficient particularity when the warrant provides a description of the correct person to be
searched that includes the correct person’s name, date of birth, and location, and the person
intended to be searched was searched.” The other person’s name was just a mistake included in the warrant, but it was clear who was being searched. State v. Taylor, 2018 Minn. App. LEXIS 170 (Apr. 2, 2018).
Defendant has no standing to challenge the seizure of his bank records by subpoena under Miller. State v. Miles, 2018 Minn. App. LEXIS 167 (Apr. 2, 2018).
California’s initiated DNA collection act requiring DNA sampling of those charged with serious felonies applies to defendant’s arson arrest. He refused to provide a sample on booking and was convicted of a misdemeanor offense. The California statute is not exactly the same as the Maryland statute in King, but the statute is close enough that King controls. People v. Buza, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 2245 (Apr. 2, 2018).
2255 petitioner couldn’t show that a dog sniff from a common area of an apartment building would have been suppressed at the time of the dog sniff before Jardines. Therefore, a motion to suppress would have been granted. Seay v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55894 (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2018).*
An ex parte communication between lawyers and a judge overheard on an open phone line of a part of a call that hadn’t been completely disconnected has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Ideally, there woud be a reasonable expectation of privacy in such conversations. Because Rule 3.5 bars ex parte communications, however, there is no privacy as a matter of public policy. Also, the office door was open. Thus, the motion to suppress in a 1983 case against the lawyers for a violation of ECPA is denied. HLV v. Page & Stewart, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55273 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018):
Continue reading
Volokh Conspiracy: Why the Supreme Court Reviews So Many Qualified Immunity Cases by Orin Kerr:
Here’s a theory, at least.
Continue reading
In Kisela v. Hughes, 17-467 (U.S. April 2, 2018), decided on the cert petition and response, the Supreme Court held that an officer who shot a woman holding a knife in an apparent threatening manner [although that seems to be disputed] near her roommate who turned out to be likely mentally ill was entitled to qualified immunity. She’d been reported using the knife to hack at a tree, and that’s why the police were called. When they confronted her, there was a chain link fence between the three officers pointing guns at her and her standing 6′ from her roommate. The dissent (Sotomayor and Ginsburg) notes that she wasn’t threatening at all, and the use of force was objectively unreasonable. From the dissent:
Continue reading
The Economist: There will be little privacy in the workplace of the future:
AI will make workplaces more efficient, safer-and much creepier.
Wired: The Hairy Problem With Drug Testing by Ellen Airhart:
Boston police officers whose hair tests positive for drugs usually have two options: admit their substance abuse problems and agree to a stint in rehabilitation, or relinquish their position. But Hogan, who finished her police training prior to 2005, says that she has never used cocaine; when she sent her hair to a private company for more testing, it came back negative. Now, she and nine other black police officers are suing the city of Boston, saying that the practice of testing hair for drugs is discriminatory. Because of the chemistry behind the test, they say, it unfairly targets dark hair. The bench trial for the case began on March 12, and may have long-lasting consequences for the future of drug testing.
NYTimes: Hey, Alexa, What Can You Hear? And What Will You Do With It? by Sapna Maheswari:
Amazon and Google have filed patent applications, many still under consideration, that outline how digital assistants can monitor more of what users say and do.
A child pornography search warrant for images “created, modified or stored in any form,” including electronically included a cell phone. As to defendant’s Franks challenge, his complaint about hearsay completely fails because whatever the police had, they obtained another person’s cell phone by consent and found email of child pornography to defendant. Scott v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53608 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2018).
Defendant was a supervisor at the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. In 2012 she seized the cell phone of a girl going into custody anyway to keep it away from her and keep her from fleeing and for evidence of drug activity. The state failed to prove that defendant knew that the search of the cell phone was unreasonable and unlawful, an essential element of Texas’s crime of official oppression. Reversed and dismissed. Reynolds v. State, 2018 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119 (Mar. 28, 2018).
Suit over opening of non-legal mail, here medical records, was frivolous. Villafana v. Clarke, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54893 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2018).
The first officer at the scene conducted a search without probable cause. A supervising officer appeared at the scene and recognized defendant as being on probation or parole. Thus, inevitable discovery applies. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53664 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge is “silly.”: “Considering the level of Maurice’s first-hand knowledge regarding the trap house and its contents as recounted in the affidavit, Defendants’ argument is silly.” United States v. Green, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54031 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2018).*
The CI’s story was confirmed by two controlled buys. The Franks challenge to the CI fails as to whether it was corroborated or completely immaterial because of the controlled buys. United States v. Carney, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8116 (3d Cir. Mar. 30, 2018).
After a crash, defendant, a passenger in the vehicle, wanted to retrieve her purse when she was free to leave. The officer picked it up from the floorboard, and it was unusually heavy and padlocked, which was unusual. Having found drugs and cash in the car already, the officer seized the purse pending getting a search warrant. The seizure was reasonable under the circumstances. State v. Walls, 290 Ore. App. 735, 2018 Ore. App. LEXIS 356 (Mar. 14, 2018).*
Plaintiff prison inmate states a claim for a digital search in front of other inmates. Fuentes v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52132 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018).
The prison strip search here had a legitimate penological interest: plaintiff’s profession of self-harm. Lindsey v. Tom, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54237 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 30, 2018).*
Defendant’s statement 24 hours after his alleged illegal arrest was attenuated. United States v. Baez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54453 (D. Minn. Mar. 30, 2018).*
Defendant’s home was subjected to a dog sniff a year before Jardines. Relying on that, the trial court suppressed. Because enough Texas cases held similar searches were valid prior to Jardines, the court concludes that the exclusionary rule would not be served by suppressing here when there was good faith reliance on prior case law. State v. Davis, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2305 (Tex. App. – Dallas Mar. 29, 2018).
COA on a 2255 is denied. Petitioner can’t show that the outcome would be different quibbling over the district court’s use of “tipster” where the district court already found probable cause from the CI’s story. United States v. Manning, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7916 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2018).
The search warrant in a murder investigation didn’t incorporate the affidavit in support, and it wasn’t present for the search, so this warrant was too general to support a search. The search warrant was shown to be for a drug investigation, and that was way outside the probable cause shown for the search in the unincorporated affidavit. People v. Boose, 2018 IL App (2d) 170016, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 170 (Mar. 29, 2018):
Continue reading
