NYLJ: Judge Urges Action to Curb ‘Overbroad’ Digital Search Warrants by Andrew Denney:
Overbroad search warrants for digital evidence are “all too common” in New York, are often green-lighted by busy judges who are focused on processing motions and are the product of a system based on outdated statutes, a Manhattan judge said in a ruling to suppress warrants for evidence in a murder case.
Lior Strahilevitz & Matthew Kugler, The Myth of Fourth Amendment Circularity, 84 U. Chi L. Rev. 1747 (2017): “Our findings suggest that popular privacy expectations are far more stable than most judges and commentators have been assuming.” Meaning what? To me: People still maintain strong expectations of privacy despite having it eroded by business (and not government) largely without knowledge or effective consent. Yes, I gave a company information about me just to do business or own a cell phone, but I sure don’t expect them to share it with the government because it’s mine and I still consider it private.
Continue reading
LATimes: Border Patrol agents spark anger after boarding bus in Florida to ask passengers for proof of citizenship by Jenny Jarvie:
Continue reading
“This case addresses whether a law-enforcement agency’s policy that an arrestee’s personal effects must accompany the arrestee to jail can, on its own, justify the warrantless retrieval of an arrestee’s personal effects from a location that is protected under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We hold that it cannot. We further hold that a search of personal effects obtained as a result of following such a policy is not a valid inventory search. We further conclude that in this case, the exclusionary rule applies to require the suppression of the evidence obtained during the unconstitutional search. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, which upheld the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of her purse, and we vacate the appellant’s convictions and sentence.” State v. Banks-Harvey, 2018-Ohio-201 (Jan. 23, 2018), revg 2016-Ohio-5792, 146 Ohio St.3d 1502, 58 N.E.3d 1173 (12th Dist. 2016):
Continue reading
Forbes: 13 Factors To Consider With Smart Home Products by Forbes Technology Council:
Continue reading
On the totality of circumstances, it was reasonable to infer probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for unlawful entry for being in an otherwise vacant building for a party. The actions of the partygoers suggested they knew they had no right to be there. Moreover, there was no controlling authority saying that the arrest was unreasonable or without probable cause. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 760 (Jan 22, 2018). Syllabus:
Continue reading
Defendant had a Franks challenge and lost. One 2255 claim is that if defense counsel investigated more, it would have been a better Franks motion, but he fails to state what else would have been found to make it better. That’s clearly insufficient for 2255 or Franks. United States v. Anderson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8587 (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2018).
Defendant arranged a hookup to meet and video a child for sex through Craiglist and Kik Messanger app. The search warrant for child pornography at his house was not “so lacking” in a factual basis for its issuance that it should be suppressed. The messages indicated he was planning on making child pornography at the meeting, and it’s not a stretch that he had in the past. The vehicle search warrant thus also permitted seizure and forensic evaluation of a hard drive found in his car. United States v. Whisman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8049 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2018).*
techdirt: Report Shows US Law Enforcement Routinely Engages In Parallel Construction by Tim Cushing:
Continue reading
The officers were solicitous of defendant’s property rights and, because his car battery was dead, they waited to get it open rather than pry open the trunk, which they could have done. Their respecting his property rights isn’t hardly a constitutional violation by their waiting. United States v. Caldwell, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8518 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 18, 2018):
Continue reading
Defendant was arrested at someone else’s home, and he had a bag. The homeowner wouldn’t take responsibility for the bag, so it went with defendant, and its inventory was reasonable on the totality. “Thus, whether or not the Officers’ testimony regarding their purpose for undertaking the search of Defendant’s property is credible, the fact that DASO possessed a legitimate justification for performing an inventory search combined with the Officers’ use of standardized procedures means that the search did not violate constitutional requirements and its fruits are thus admissible.” United States v. Silva, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9137 (D. N.M. Jan. 19, 2018).
The trial testimony showed that there was consent to search granted by the defendant. Defendant fails to show counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search. Molina-Sanchez v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8871 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 19, 2018).*
On the totality of the evidence, recognizing that dog sniffs can be unreliable (see quote), the court finds this one reliable. Also, there isn’t much difference here between a dog “alert” and an “indication.” United States v. Herbst, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215470 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 21, 2017):
Continue reading
Plaintiff meets his burden to get a preliminary injunction against a city rental property inspection ordinance that had no warrant requirement for refused entry. Rental property is not a closely regulated industry. Vonderhaar v. Evendale, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8856 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 19, 2018):
Continue reading
Defendant’s probation agreement said that he’d submit to probation searches “at the request of” the probation officer. Searching without a prior request was fatal. State v. Jaskowski, 2018 Ida. LEXIS 19 (Jan 18, 2018).
“The Franks challenge to paragraph three of the affidavit is that the affiant did not receive information directly from the CMHA officer but received it from another detective. The statement is cursory and does not indicate the foundation for the CMHA officer’s representation.” And, even if true, doesn’t overcome the presumption of validity of the warrant because of no materiality to the probable cause. State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-169, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 165 (8th Dist. Jan. 18, 2018).*
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages in another person’s cell phone. State v. Young, 2018 La. App. LEXIS 110 (La. App. 2 Cir. Jan. 18, 2018).
Defendant was on parole and his parole agreement required he wear a GPS monitor, and it showed him frequenting the homes of known drug dealers. That with a CI’s information was probable cause for an automobile search of his car. State v. Fisher, 2018 Iowa App. LEXIS 16 (Jan. 16, 2018).*
Volokh Conspiracy: The Challenge of Fourth Amendment Originalism and the Positive Law Test by Orin Kerr:
If the Positive Law test is originalist, then what isn’t? A close look at Fourth Amendment history and some recent scholarship.
Continue reading
