A 2014 dog sniff at a motel room door violates the Fourth Amendment, and a reasonably well-trained officer in Illinois would know that. Suppressed. People v. Lindsey, 2018 IL App (3d) 150877, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 807 (Oct. 30, 2018).
Officers used a ruse to gain access to defendant’s hotel room. His statement then was suppressed. A prior statement was not. United States v. Lara, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183707 (D. Maine Oct. 26, 2018).*
Defendant admitted possession of marijuana during a traffic stop. After the car turned up empty, there was then probable cause for a search of his person. People v. Roulhac, 2018 NY Slip Op 07367, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7357 (3d Dept. Nov. 1, 2018).
The officers and probable cause for defendant’s arrest without a warrant. That permitted a search incident of his person. The alleged omissions in the affidavit for the search warrant for his place were not material and don’t meet the Franks threshold. United States v. Miller, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184010 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 26, 2018).*
Defendant is indicted for Hobbs Act robbery, and detectives believed he was in a string of robberies. They obtained ping information on the phone in an attempt to locate him before he committed another robbery. Exigency is shown by the government for the immediate action to get location of the phone to arrest defendant. This was in good faith reliance on the provisions providing for emergency ping orders. United States v. Hammond, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182866 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 24, 2018).
CSLI obtained a year before Carpenter with a search warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Grim, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182860 (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2018).*
A federal criminal complaint can satisfy the probable cause requirement for a DNA sample. United States v. Mercado-Gracia, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182458 (D. N.M. Oct. 24, 2018).
Defendant’s term of probation permitting searches of his residence includes temporary quarters, such as a motel room. Cochran v. State, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 8859 (Tex. App. – Texarkana Oct. 31, 2018).
The failure to include the date of uploading of child pornography images wasn’t known to the officer at the time the search warrant was obtained, so the officer did not mislead the magistrate issuing the warrant. The misstatement of the officer as to the IP address wasn’t intentional nor did it undermine probable cause. In addition, the officer omitted a wealth of information that would have shown more probable cause. That undermines the claim that the officer was attempting to mislead. United States v. Crockett, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182229 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2018).
Atlantic: VIDEO: You Should Be Worried About Your DNA Privacy by Vishakha Darbha & Sarah Zhang:
As DNA tests such as 23andMe and AncestryDNA become increasingly prevalent, concerns about genetic privacy are mounting-and with good reason, says the Atlantic writer Sarah Zhang. In the latest Atlantic Argument, Zhang explains how the recent spate of arrests that were made due to DNA databases-the most famous being the Golden State Killer-are just the beginning.
The use of a ruse to get consent to enter plaintiff’s house to conduct a civil fraud investigation violated the Fourth Amendment. The surreptitious use of a video recorder was a “search.” However, it was not clearly established at the time, so he gets qualified immunity. Whalen v. McMullen, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30686 (9th Cir. Oct. 30, 2018).
A ruling on a motion to suppress during the proceedings is subject to change. It is not governed by res judicata because it isn’t final. United States v. Baez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184017 (D. Minn. Aug. 30, 2018), adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183647 (D. Minn. Oct. 26, 2018).
Officers had probable cause for defendant’s arrest and he fled, and they followed in hot pursuit into his house. “Defendant created the exigent circumstances by disregarding law enforcement’s commands to stop, grabbing his waistband, turning away from the officers, running inside the house, and closing the door.” A protective sweep was valid. United States v. Brown, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185187 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2018).
Officers could conduct a protective sweep when executing a search warrant. “In the case at hand, there was no testimony regarding bad faith on part of the officers who searched the residence where Appellant was hiding.” State v. Davis, 2018-Ohio-4368, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4698 (3d Dist. Oct. 29, 2018). [Since when is lack of proof of bad faith good faith?]
A jewelry store was robbed, and police came to the scene. Nearby, they encountered defendant walking along a road. “Given Thomas’s emergence from the bushes on Fire Burn Hill–the precise location and direction suspects were reported to be fleeing at the time–and his physical appearance–consistent with fleeing for a period of time–it was reasonable for Greaves to conclude that Thomas was one of the robbery suspects in flight from VIPD.” United States v. Thomas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182521 (D. V.I. Oct. 24, 2018).*
Defendant was arrested as a result of an entry on a capias for a domestic relations “violation.” The warrant was two months getting served, and there was no inquiry into whether defendant was residing at the home of a friend at the time. Thus, there was no probable cause for the entry. Commonwealth v. Chisholm, 2018 PA Super 391, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1156 (Oct. 30, 2018).
Defendant was lawfully detained in the book-in area in the jail when she abandoned meth secreted in her vagina. Officers were attempting to get a search warrant for a body cavity search when abandonment occurred. State v. Ibarra, 2018 Ida. App. LEXIS 47 (Oct. 30, 2018).*
The government failed to prove that exigency justified its warrantless entry. United States v. Caballero, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182505 (D. Mass. Oct. 24, 2018)*: