A protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside. United States v. Ratcliff, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5443 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018).
Officer “knocked” on defendant’s tent at a campsite to talk to him, no different than knocking at the door to a house. The officer didn’t enter the tent, and defendant came out to talk to him. There was no coercion, and it’s all on body camera. United States v. Nikulshin, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33867 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018).*
Plaintiffs adequately allege a claim for unreasonable execution of a search warrant. The officers executed a search warrant at 4 am without knocking or announcing, and shot the lock off the door. Greer v. City of Highland Park, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5330 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018):
Continue reading
Nexus was shown to defendant’s cell phone because the affidavit in support of the search warrant for the phone showed that the gang had used cell phones to communicate and defendant was using his phone when arrested and he’d already been indicted in the RICO conspiracy. In any event, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5346 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018).
There was probable cause for the state search warrant based on the CI’s story that the police investigated and proved accurate. United States v. Davis, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31819 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2018).*
ACLU: TSA Tests See-Through Scanners on Public in New York’s Penn Station by Rashida Richardson, New York Civil Liberties Union & Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project:
Continue reading
“Based on our in camera review of the transcript of the Darden hearing, we are satisfied that County Court properly determined that the CIs existed and provided reliable and timely information that justified a finding that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant.” People v. Matthews, 2018 NY Slip Op 01355, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1351 (3d Dept. Mar. 1, 2018).
A waived search and seizure claim doesn’t fit within Arkansas’s super extremely limited plain error exception. Sampson v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 160, 2018 Ark. App. LEXIS 165 (Feb. 28, 2018).*
“After discovering kilos of meth in the suitcase Maria Isabel Molina-Isidoro was carrying across the border, customs agents looked at a couple of apps on her cell phone. Molina argues that the evidence found during this warrantless search of her phone should be suppressed. Along with amici, she invites the court to announce general rules concerning the application of the government’s historically broad border-search authority to modern technology for which the Supreme Court has recognized increased privacy interests. See Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489-91, 2493 (2014). We decline the invitation to do so because the nonforensic search of Molina’s cell phone at the border was supported by probable cause. That means at a minimum the agents had a good-faith basis for believing the search did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5226 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2018).
The protective sweep here was unreasonable because the officers had no articulable facts at all that there was potentially anyone inside before entering. United States v. Rucker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33607 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 1, 2018).
“Mr. Huffman had no constitutional right to be advised of the consequences of submitting-to a chemical test for the presence of a controlled dangerous substance when the test results show a positive reading because Mr. Huffman was not tested for the presence of a controlled dangerous substance. Moreover, Mr. Huffman was not prejudiced by the omission from the standardized rights form of subsection (d) regarding chemical testing for the presence of controlled dangerous substances where there was no suspicion that he was under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, and he submitted to the chemical test for intoxication, which results indicated a .172 grams percent blood alcohol concentration.” Huffman v. State, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 316 (La. App. 1 Cir. Feb. 27, 2018).*
In the course of a homicide investigation, the victim was shown to have last talked to defendant on his cell phone just before his murder. That led to getting his picture to show to a witness who ID’d him as being the shooter. Police went to a mailbox at the apartment complex and found he had apartment 3. The mailbox was open, and the police looked at a piece of mail to confirm it was his apartment. That was not an unreasonable search. Even if it was, they’d already determined that apartment 3 was his, and that’s the independent source doctrine. State v. Magee, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 324 (La. App. 1 Cir. Feb. 27, 2018).*
The prison “open cell door policy is [not] a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy” because there is practically no reasonable expectation of privacy in a prison. Stiefel v. Dep’t of Butler County Prison of Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33294 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2018).*
Hearsay is admissible in a suppression hearing. The parties agreed here that the officer’s testimony at the preliminary hearing would be the basis for the suppression hearing, and it shows exigent circumstances for the entry into defendant’s home. State v. Bates, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 350 (La. App. 2 Cir. Feb. 28, 2018).
Defendant attached transcripts and reports to his post-conviction petition but didn’t explain their relevance to his ineffective assistance of counsel on a search issue claim. “Without more information or explanation, it is not possible to discern the possible importance of this information. Mizell fails to specify with reasonable particularity a factual basis for relief and thus, fails to allege a claim which, if established, would entitle him to relief.” State ex rel. Mizell v. State, 2018 La. LEXIS 495 (Feb. 28, 2018) (per curiam) (adopting trial court’s findings).*
The police surveilled defendant’s garage where he was alleged to sell meth from his home in the early morning or at night when he was home. The totality of circumstances add up to reasonable suspicion, and defendant’s challenge was to the individual circumstances, which isn’t the question. United States v. Collins, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4975 (8th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018).*
Defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of the motion to suppress a protective sweep in light of a case decided by the Tenth Circuit in December is denied because the December case isn’t new law. United States v. Mora, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30708 (D. N.M. Feb. 27, 2018).*
Defendant doesn’t show that his stop for his seat belt violation was racially motivated. After the stop it turned out that all the occupants had no seat belts on. The stop was not overlong. It turned out one of the occupants had been previously removed from the United States. Identity information is not suppressed. United States v. Zavala, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32504 (D. Me. Feb. 28, 2018).*
The question is not just probable cause; it’s whether it was reasonable for the officer to rely on a warrant that is not facially deficient. United States v. Knox, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4791 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018):
Continue reading
The search in the Philippines was not a joint venture with the United States, so the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to it. “There is no evidence that the FBI was aware that items from Defendant’s home were in the suitcase. Additionally, the facts directly refute the inference that Filipino law enforcement removed items specific to the FBI investigation at its request. Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, and his rights were not violated.” United Staes v. McDonald, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30223 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 26, 2018).
The search warrant was based on probable cause, and the warrant was limited by the crimes under investigation. Therefore, it was particular. United States v. Rhame, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32212 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2018).*
“Deputy Tucker’s affidavit established a minimally sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched.” Therefore, the affidavit shows probable cause. “The warrant was not based on an affidavit that ‘merely states suspicions, beliefs, or conclusions.’ Roach, 582 F.3d at 1204-05. It adequately linked the Pair’s criminal activity to the place to be searched.” The affidavit here was stronger than approved in another case. United States v. Chambers, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4787 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018).* Not a ringing endorsement, but the good faith exception in SCOTUS just requires minimal effort.*
After the suppression hearing and before the appellate brief was due, the state supreme court abandoned the more rigid Aguilar-Spinelli test for informant hearsay. The CI’s basis of knowledge is still important. On the totality, there was probable cause. State v. Ferguson, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 149 (Feb. 27, 2018).*
___________
* Good enough for government work?
WSJ: When Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used Against You by Joe Palazzolo:
The digital age has accelerated carve-outs to a concept that most Americans take for granted: that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution can’t be used against someone.
The government proved that defendant’s consent was attentuated from the alleged unlawful detention because the paperwork during the stop was given back. The district court considered the fact defendant complained she had to pee really bad. United States v. Ramos, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4819 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018)*:
Continue reading
Defendant was a known drug dealer, and he was parked with his hood open. He said he was checking the belt on the engine. The officer was not prohibited from approaching the car and looking under the hood, too. Defendant had the burden of showing that the alleged unlawful detention was the “but for” cause, and he failed. United States v. Class, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4601 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2018):
Continue reading
Despite renting a hotel room in a false name, defendant had standing to challenge the search of the room because he rented it and he was sleeping there and had his stuff there. The search warrant was based on an affidavit for heroin sales, and the warrant’s particularity had a reference back to “property connected with the above listed crime(s),” and that’s particular enough. United States v. Rocher, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30262 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2018).
Responding to defendant’s challenge that the search under the warrant was invalid, the court looked first to the good faith exception which the court reviews de novo. The affidavit for the warrant was not “bare bones.” It showed what the officers did try to investigate the CI’s information and other police intel, along with the fact they employed various “investigative techniques,” which the court doesn’t elaborate on. The fact it was not bare bones means that the officers “could have” relied upon it. Second, there was probable cause in any event. United States v. Huerra, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4858 (5th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018).*
SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails by Amy Howe:
Continue reading
Forbes: The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence by Thomas Fox-Brewster:
In what appears to be a major breakthrough for law enforcement, and a possible privacy problem for Apple customers, a major U.S. government contractor claims to have found a way to unlock pretty much every iPhone on the market.
Daily Beast: Fitbit Could Prove a Man’s Innocence. Google Could Send Another to Prison for Murder by
Kate Briquelet:
A troubled boyfriend. A hard-drinking felon. And a young mom bludgeoned to death steps from her own home. Now smart technologies could help solve who murdered Nicole VanderHeyden.
