Defendant’s suppression motion made an attempt at a GPS and Franks challenge. After the hearing was over, the warrant and affidavit to procure it were not proffered for the record. This was waiver. State v. Mock, 2018-Ohio-268, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 264 (8th Dist. Jan. 25, 2018).
Probationer’s challenge to electronic search condition for probation was forfeited. In re Carlos C., 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 63 (1st Dist. Jan. 25, 2018).*
A UPS employee suspected contraband in a package shipped from Las Vegas to Florida, and a supervisor then opened. While it was open, police came and photographed it, and this did not exceed the private search. United States v. Washington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12361 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2018).*
Defendant was stopped for no DL. His car was being impounded but he was released. As defendant started to walk off, the car alarm went off when the officer opened the door. He called to the defendant to deactivate it and leave the key for the tow truck driver. As the inventory proceeded, meth was found, and he was arrested. The inventory followed proper procedure. State v. Dauphin, 2017 N.H. LEXIS 252 (Dec. 13, 2017) (memorandum).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails because, even accepting it as true, there’s still probable cause. United States v. Barclay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2018).*
“Probable cause ‘is not a high bar.’ Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090, 1103 (2014). ‘It requires only the kind of fair probability on which reasonable and prudent [people,] not legal technicians, act.’ Id. (citing Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1055 (2013) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 231, 238)) (internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original). A reviewing court should give ‘great deference’ to a magistrate judge’s probable cause determination and reverse only if it was ‘arbitrarily’ made. ….” They had that here, and, even if not, the good faith exception applies.
United States v. Crooms, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13183 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2018).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to defendant’s jail calls that he knew were monitored and recorded. Hubbard v. State, 2018 Del. LEXIS 34 (Jan. 25, 2018).*
A drug raid led to a strip search of defendant in the house with 2 grams of cocaine found in his “butt cheeks,” and neither the search warrant nor the strip search is an issue on appeal. State v. Linsey, 2018 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 49 (Jan. 25, 2018).*
Defendant’s “particularity challenge is utterly without merit.” So is the alleged lack of probable cause for the search warrant. United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12284 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2018);* United States v. Rangel, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12274 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2018); United States v. Rangel-Rubio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12277 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2018).*
Exigent circumstances in finding a shooter at a school bus stop necessitated the officers pinging the cell phone to locate the shooter. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search because it would have failed. Barton v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 872 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 25, 2018):
Continue reading
An application for a gag order against grand jury witnesses was insufficient. “The application as currently submitted fails to establish sufficient grounds for a non-disclosure order. First, a particularized showing of need has not been made and, instead, the application rests on boilerplate assertions that could be made with respect to essentially any grand jury proceeding. See App. at 2 (stating that there is ‘reason to believe’ disclosure may hinder the criminal investigation and prosecution, without any particularized discussion). Second, the Government seeks an order lasting ‘until further order of the Court or until twelve months from the date of the order, whichever occurs first,’ id. at 1, without any showing that such an extensive period is appropriate based on the facts of this case.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12396 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2018);* In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12394 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2018);* In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12766 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2018);* In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12774 (D. Nev. Jan. 26, 2018).*
NYTimes: Tech Giants Brace for Europe’s New Data Privacy Rules by Sheera Frankel:
The tech giants are preparing for a stringent new set of data privacy rules in the region, called the General Data Protection Regulation. Set to take effect on May 25, the regulations restrict what types of personal data the tech companies can collect, store and use across the 28-member European Union.
Defendant met a drug buyer, drove to his house, and reunited with the buyer for the transaction. This gives sufficient probable cause for nexus to house. State v. Detamore, 2018-Ohio-297, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 274 (5th Dist. Jan. 25, 2018).
Defense counsel has wide discretion in choosing the suppression arguments to make to the trial court. There was no valid motion to suppress overlooked by defense counsel here. The search warrant omitted certain information acquired by the police but it was inculpatory and not exculpatory and it was hearsay from others. The omitted information sure doesn’t help the defendant. State v. Nickelson, 2018-Ohio-250, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 255 (7th Dist. Jan. 24, 2018).*
The defendant was on bail, and his bondsman monitored him by GPS. The police obtained the GPS information to connect him to another crime. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the bondsman’s GPS. People v. Campbell, 2018 COA 5, 2018 Colo. App. LEXIS 70 (Jan. 25, 2018):
Continue reading
Police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their own body camera videos. Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1980 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018):
Continue reading
The drugs here would have been inevitably found one way or the other. The inevitable discovery rule doesn’t provide the police an incentive to not comply with Fourth Amendment protections. State v. Prinkleton, 2018 ME 16, 2018 Me. LEXIS 15 (Jan. 25, 2018):
Continue reading
Defendant is a sexually violent predator (SVP), and he’s institutionalized. His custodial status shares all the attributes of being in prison, including institutional security. The only place an SVP could hide child pornography is in his dormitory room. His room is subject to search at any time.
People v. Golden, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1171 (5th Dist. Dec. 27, 2017), ordered published Jan. 24, 2018):
Continue reading
Playpen warrants (where the seized server was in the Eastern District of Virginia) were valid, and the good faith exception applied because it wasn’t readily apparent that the USMJ exceeded his or her jurisdiction or that that would be a recognizable error. United States v. McLamb, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1914 (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018).
The use of an administrative subpoena for third party information as to the names and addresses of account holders communicating with the Philippines about child pornography was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. After that, search warrants were used to get into the houses and computers. United States v. Shultz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11295 (D. Kan. Jan. 24, 2018).*
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy from a government license plate reader collecting information on the movements of one’s car. It can’t be compared to GPS tracking, and it’s not an electronic trespass. United States v. Yang, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11967 (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2018):
Continue reading
The Verge: Exclusive: ICE is about to start tracking license plates across the US by Russell Brandom:
Continue reading
WaPo: How to fight mass surveillance even though Congress just reauthorized it by Bruce Schneier
What the battle looks like after Section 702’s reauthorization.
A claim that government agents disclosed the contents of the search of his house to FoxNews didn’t state a claim under The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. “Rule 41 does not authorize a court to manage the collection, storage, or use of property obtained pursuant to a search warrant, other than ordering the return of such property.” In re 2122 21st Rd. N. Arlington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11874 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2018):
Continue reading
The FBI’s search of defendant’s computers was governed by the Indiana Constitution in state court, and the search was unlawful under that. Since Indiana doesn’t recognize the attenuation doctrine, defendant’s statements are suppressed as well. Wright v. State, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 18 (Jan. 25, 2018).
Where defendant communicated with a minor over the internet, that gave the police probable cause to seize and search his cell phone as a likely means of communication with the PlentyofFish dating website. “The officers had ample reason to seek a search warrant for defendant’s iPhone and home computer. In particular, the phone found in his possession and seized at the time of his arrest was likely the instrument used by him, rather than by someone else, to communicate on the PlentyofFish site. The contents of the phone would be reasonably expected to confirm that the device had been used by him to entice a 15-year old female into a sexually explicit encounter.” United States v. Young, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11449 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 24, 2018).
The government didn’t raise validity of the scope of the full protective sweep before the USMJ and waived it after the R&R. United States v. Salazar, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10212 (D. N.M. Jan. 23, 2018).
Defendant’s cell phone search was pre-Riley and valid under law at the time, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the lack of warrant. West v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11207 (D. Md. Jan. 24, 2018).*
The court finds defendant’s consent was voluntary, therefore, defense counsel can’t have been ineffective. Riquene v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11079 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2018).*
