Defendant was unresponsive in a parked car with the engine running. “The officer’s knocking on Bridgeford’s vehicle window was within the scope of the officer’s community caretaking function. Because the officer was acting within his role as a community caretaker, the officer’s knocking on the window was not an impermissible trespass on Bridgeford’s property and was not an attempt to gather information which required a warrant.” Bridgeford v. Sorel, 2019 ND 153, 2019 N.D. LEXIS 163 (June 27, 2019).
The dog arrived at the traffic stop within minutes and the dog sniff was completed before the paperwork check was completed. The dog’s alert wasn’t shown on the video, but the officer testified the dog did, and that’s what the court finds. United States v. Turner, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111162 (D. Me. July 3, 2019).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls to nonlawyers. The government didn’t show that defendants could even understand the warning in English on the phone, but it doesn’t matter. United States v. Reyes-Canales, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111846 (D. Md. July 2, 2019).
The arrest warrant was issued on probable cause. Even if it wasn’t, there was good faith reliance on it which permits the search incident. The search warrant for his social media account and iPhone were issued on plenty of probable cause. His Franks challenge fails for lack of materiality. United States v. Parks, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111121 (D. Md. July 3, 2019).*
The American Conservative: Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s Friendly Police Fantasy by James Bovard:
Better relations will only come when we repeal the legions of laws empowering cops to unjustifiably accost peaceful citizens.
You may not agree, but the author has valid points to make. He is the author of 1994’s Lost Rights, a really good book.
TechCrunch: Amazon responds to a US senator’s inquiry, confirms Alexa voice records are kept indefinitely by Sarah Perez:
Amazon has responded to a letter of inquiry it received from U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) that asks the company to detail what happens to customers’ Alexa voice records and data after they speak to their virtual assistant. The Senator’s letter was prompted by a CNET investigation in May, which found that Amazon keeps voice records unless users manually delete them — and that it may keep text transcripts of those voice recordings indefinitely.
Remember these subpoenas?
ABC News: NH (2018): Judge orders Amazon to hand over Echo recordings in double murder case
Business Insider: AR (2017): Amazon handed over Alexa recordings to the police in a murder case. That case got dropped because the state depended on that evidence. Arkansas Prosecutors Drop Murder Case That Hinged On Evidence From Amazon Echo
And this piece? Bloomberg Opinion: The Future Will Be Recorded, on Your Smart Speaker (“We should welcome Amazon’s plans for Alexa to listen to more of what we say.”).
The government obtained a search warrant for defendant’s computer for 18 U.S.C. § 1960 and for operating an unlicensed Bitcoin exchange service. During the search, the officer found an image of child pornography. He stopped the search and applied for a search warrant. The affidavit and search warrant and search are valid, but the court goes on at length about the necessity of comprehensive ex ante review of search warrant materials in computer search cases to avoid oversearches. United States v. Stetkiw, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111216 (E.D. Mich. July 3, 2019):
Defendant filed a motion to suppress CSLI from 2015 before Carpenter was even decided. Because no state case held that CSLI was not a search or the good faith exception applied and there were, in fact, cases holding that CSLI was a search, defendant gets the benefit of Carpenter. While Carpenter didn’t decide realtime CSLI, the court finds that Carpenter applies with greater force to it. Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 2019 PA Super 208 (July 3, 2019):
“We disavow the idea that Article 38.23 extends the Fourth Amendment to private citizens acting in a private capacity. We reaffirm that the Fourth Amendment is a restraint on government and that it does not apply to private individuals who are acting as such. The court of appeals correctly held that Saenz’s search of Appellee’s phone was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because Saenz was acting as a private individual when he looked at the pictures.” Ruiz v. State, 2019 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 664 (July 3, 2019).
For the government to rely on the good faith exception by claiming the attachment limiting the warrant was attached to the search warrant, it bears the burden of showing that, and it didn’t.
United States v. Chang, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109933 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2019).
“[A]pplying the ‘corrected affidavit test’ to the facts at issue in this case, a neutral magistrate would still have probable cause upon which to issue a search warrant.” United States v. Rivera, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110364 (D. Conn. July 2, 2019).*
Defendant challenged alleged consent to search a cell phone by providing the password after the 10 days to execute the warrant expired. The record is short and deficient, and the case is remanded. State v. Folse, 2019 La. LEXIS 1587 (July 2, 2019).*
The Texas Medical Board violated the Fourth Amendment when conducting an administrative search of a physician’s office because it demanded immediate compliance with its subpoena. The medical industry as a whole was not a closely regulated industry, and the statutory scheme was not a proper substitute for a search warrant because there were insufficient limits on the discretion of the Board. The Board members, however, were entitled to qualified immunity because the unlawfulness of their conduct was not clearly established at the time of the search, and the search was not pretextual. Zadeh v. Robinson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19797 (5th Cir. July 2, 2019).
Today is the 35th anniversary of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), fittingly decided in 1984.
As I related many years ago here, I did a CLE for Memphis prosecutors about a year later on how to litigate the good faith exception, and the person that introduced me actually said that “July 5th was Independence Day from the Fourth Amendment,” like the Bill of Rights was meaningless. Luckily, the Fourth Amendment still lives, albeit changed, limited, and infinitely more complicated.
The state constitution does not require a different outcome for pretextual stops than under the Fourth Amendment. It isn’t prudential to do so, and the state’s 1857 constitutional convention wanted the state to follow the Fourth Amendment. State v. Brown, 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 83 (June 28, 2019).
Defendant argues that the finding of his drugs was the result of his illegal arrest. It was from his abandoning it when he was brought to the jail. State v. McMillon, 2019-Ohio-2716 (7th Dist. July 2, 2019).*
Defendant gave a statement to the police and then he was left alone in the interrogation room to talk to his wife for 40 minutes. Police recorded the conversation. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the room, and, even if marital privacy was violated, it’s admission was harmless in light of other proof. State v. Kinney, 2019-Ohio-2704, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 2838 (7th Dist. July 2, 2019).
Defendant fails to show that the search warrant for his child pornography was issued without probable cause or was stale. He argues drug case staleness, and that’s a false analogy. United States v. Gordy, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110654 (M.D. Tenn. July 2, 2019).*