OR: Mobility is all that’s required for auto. exception under state const. too

As long as the vehicle was mobile and there was probable cause, the automobile exception applies. “In sum, the automobile exception applies in this case because defendant’s car was mobile when officers encountered it in connection with defendant’s felony arrest warrant and, during the lawful stop for execution of that warrant, officers developed probable cause to search the trunk of the car.” State v. Campbell, 289 Ore. App. 442, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1603 (Dec. 28, 2017) (state constitution). Note: For those in other states: Oregon hasn’t effectively cited the Fourth Amendment in any opinion in several decades, except as an example of what federal law requires and that’s less likely because the state has built a far more substantial body of state constitutional law than any other. This case doesn’t cite the Fourth Amendment either.

Posted in Automobile exception, State constitution | Comments Off on OR: Mobility is all that’s required for auto. exception under state const. too

D.Nev.: Good cause shown for execution of SW at night because of neighborhood children

The government showed good cause for execution of a search warrant at night because of defendant’s house’s proximity to a school on break that would likely have kids around in the day in case the raid became violent. In any event, suppression is not the remedy for violation of the nighttime search requirement. United States v. Payan, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212717 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211994 (D. Nev. Dec. 27, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Nighttime search | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Good cause shown for execution of SW at night because of neighborhood children

IL: ER dr. ordered forced catheterization from combative female for urine sample; wasn’t state action because two police officers helped hold her down

Defendant was involved in a vehicle accident and hospitalized. The ER doctor needed to know whether she was on drugs, and he ordered forced catheterization to get urine since defendant was combative. Two officers who also wanted to know whether she was on drugs helped hold her down to get the urine sample while a nurse drew it. This minimal and incidental participation by the police didn’t turn the forced catheterization into state action. People v. Sykes, 2017 IL App (1st) 150023, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 822 (Dec. 26, 2017).

State statute on blood draw without exigency violates the Fourth Amendment under McNeely. The state needs to show exigency, and here it didn’t. People v. Eubanks, 2017 IL App (1st) 142837, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 823 (Dec. 26, 2017).

There was no unconstitutional condition in breath testing to be followed by another test that might require a warrant. Birchfield says breath tests are reasonable. Shin v. Commonwealth, 2017 Va. LEXIS 200 (Dec. 28, 2017).*

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Private search | Comments Off on IL: ER dr. ordered forced catheterization from combative female for urine sample; wasn’t state action because two police officers helped hold her down

OH2: Using a car protective spray on interior expecting a search to occur is tampering with evidence

Spraying a car interior protective spray on the inside of a car involved in a crime when expecting that a search would occur for fingerprints and DNA supported defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence. State v. Scott, 2017-Ohio-9316, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5788 (2d Dist. Dec. 29, 2017).

After a patdown producing nothing, the officer noticed defendant’s shoes weren’t tied. He asked defendant if he could look at his shoes, and defendant kicked them off. This was consent. State v. Murray, 2017-Ohio-9332, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5803 (11th Dist. Dec. 29, 2017).*

Posted in Consent, Warrant execution | Comments Off on OH2: Using a car protective spray on interior expecting a search to occur is tampering with evidence

PA: Alluding to a SCOTUS case without fleshing out how it applies held waiver when argument complicated

The defense didn’t properly frame its argument under Birchfield about forced implied consent and thus didn’t preserve error. “We cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s suppression motion that vaguely cited to Birchfield.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 2017 PA Super 416, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1108 (Dec. 28, 2017).

Defendant was tried on a 54 year old murder case. Defense counsel had a year to file a motion to suppress but didn’t do so until ten days before trial contending that he couldn’t be sure what the grounds for suppression would be. The trial court didn’t abuse it’s discretion in denying the motion as untimely. State v. Vail, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 2477 (La.App. 3 Cir. Dec. 28, 2017).

Posted in Burden of pleading | Comments Off on PA: Alluding to a SCOTUS case without fleshing out how it applies held waiver when argument complicated

D.Md.: A SW for cell phone data going to Verizon in FL was within the court’s jurisdiction

Where the crime under investigation is in this district, it doesn’t matter that the search warrant for geolocation data from defendant’s cell phone is located in another district. The government can still get it by search warrant under Rule 41(b) and the SCA. United States v. Bustos-Andrade, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213063 (D. Md. Dec. 29, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Md.: A SW for cell phone data going to Verizon in FL was within the court’s jurisdiction

CA10: Scope of consent to search has to be raised in the trial court

The issue of scope of a consent search has to be presented to the trial court to be preserved. This wasn’t. United States v. Vargas, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26869 (10th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017).

There is no right to interlocutory appeal of a suppression motion in federal court. United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26936 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2017).

“CI’s unlicensed driving to the drug transaction” that led to a search warrant was not outrageous governmental conduct under the due process clause. United States v. Spicer, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26685 (4th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA10: Scope of consent to search has to be raised in the trial court

M.D.Ala.: Conclusorily pleading a Franks violation isn’t a sufficient offer of proof

Defendant fails in his Franks argument for a failure of an offer of proof. Merely conclusorily stating the issue isn’t enough. There has to be context and how it was knowingly false. United States v. Martin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213190 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 15, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212967 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 29, 2017).

Omission of alleged exculpatory information (not seeing stuff during a plain view) from the affidavit wasn’t exactly exculpatory for Franks purposes, and it didn’t undermine the probable cause. The affidavit for search warrant was about ongoing criminal activity, and the showing of probable cause was neither stale nor bare bones. United States v. Parker, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212629 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212319 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2017).*

“At bottom, the Court is left with the impression that Agent McCormick was not a master of detail, that he was inattentive, and that he was a poor writer. But the Court is not impressed with Anderson’s showing that McCormick either set out to deceive, or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his allegations, when he drafted his affidavit.” “Beyond any doubt the cumulative weight of this unchallenged material was sufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant for Anderson’s business/residence, as well as seizure warrants for his brokerage accounts. Because neither the elimination of the alleged falsehoods, nor the inclusion of the information that Anderson contends was deliberately or recklessly omitted, would defeat probable cause, the Court can say with confidence that Anderson’s veracity challenge is insufficient on its face, without any need for holding an evidentiary hearing.” United States v. Anderson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212765 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212734 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 28, 2017).*

No Franks hearing is justified because the mistakes and omissions aren’t material. Removed from the affidavit, the remainder still shows probable cause. United States v. McQuiston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212443 (D. Kan. Dec. 28, 2017).*

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Conclusorily pleading a Franks violation isn’t a sufficient offer of proof

CA10: Smell of MJ authorizes search for MJ, not looking at multiple credit cards

An anonymous caller said defendant was smoking marijuana on his car. This was reasonable suspicion at best. Assuming the smell of marijuana provides probable cause to search, the search was for marijuana, and inspecting credit cards unreasonably expanded the search. The government argues that the number of cards alone was suspicious, but the court doesn’t agree because there was nothing else for suspicion. United States v. Saulsberry, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26865 (10th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017).

Defendant did not file a motion to suppress or argue lack of probable cause until his closing argument, and that was waiver. State v. Wilson, 2017 Haw. App. LEXIS 500 (Dec. 26, 2017).

Posted in Burden of pleading, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA10: Smell of MJ authorizes search for MJ, not looking at multiple credit cards

ID: Failure to repeat “computer” in SW for things to be seized wasn’t a violation of 4A; CA7 typo in LPN can be overlooked

The preamble of the search warrant listed a bunch of digital things to search for and seize but the specific search clause didn’t include “computer.” The search warrant as a whole included computers, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the warrant. This was a mere scrivener’s error subject to being overlooked without there being prejudice. Adamcik v. State, 2017 Ida. LEXIS 351 (Dec. 26, 2017).

The affidavit for search warrant for a Tahoe and an apartment showed probable cause. An typo transposing on the LPN of the vehicle transposing two numbers hardly undermines probable cause. United States v. Pettis, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26750 (7th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017).

Posted in Burden of pleading, Computer and cloud searches, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on ID: Failure to repeat “computer” in SW for things to be seized wasn’t a violation of 4A; CA7 typo in LPN can be overlooked

KS: PBT is a search subject to 4A

PBT is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. State v. Robinson, 2017 Kan. App. LEXIS 89 (Dec. 22, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on KS: PBT is a search subject to 4A

OH10: State law requirement of preserving additional testimony to get SW not violation of 4A; complete failure of PC means no GFE; the state has no 4A rights

Prior holding on complete failure of probable cause wasn’t cross-appealed by the state and remains law of the case. Ohio’s Rule 41 that includes that additional testimony besides the affidavit has to be transcribed and made part of the record does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and it is binding. The statements made and not preserved are not part of the record. The complete failure of probable cause bars the state’s reliance on the good faith exception. “The State can neither assert nor defend its position under the rubric of the Fourth Amendment, since it has no Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment that can be violated. [¶] It should be emphasized that the Fourth Amendment establishes a floor, not a ceiling.” State v. Dibble, 2017-Ohio-9321, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5795 (10th Dist. Dec. 29, 2017), prior appeal 2011-Ohio-3817, 195 Ohio App.3d 189, 959 N.E.2d 540 (10th Dist. 2011), rev’d 2012-Ohio-4630, 133 Ohio St.3d 451, 979 N.E.2d 247 (2012).

Posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH10: State law requirement of preserving additional testimony to get SW not violation of 4A; complete failure of PC means no GFE; the state has no 4A rights

D.Kan.: Driving unlicensed vehicle not ground for search under search incident or automobile exception

Driving an allegedly unlicensed vehicle doesn’t support a search incident for paperwork on the vehicle. The automobile exception didn’t support a search either because there was no probable cause. After defendant was handcuffed and away from the vehicle, a Long protective frisk of the vehicle wasn’t appropriate either. Plain view, however, supported a search and seizure of a firearm that could be seen from outside the vehicle. United States v. Richardson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212857 (D. Kan. Dec. 28, 2017).

Defendant saying he was armed and that he was going in his house to get more firearms was probable cause to believe there were more guns in the house. United States v. Lax, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213039 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 28, 2017).*

Posted in Automobile exception | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Driving unlicensed vehicle not ground for search under search incident or automobile exception

WaPo: A police officer fatally shot a man while responding to an emergency call now called a ‘swatting’ prank

WaPo: A police officer fatally shot a man while responding to an emergency call now called a ‘swatting’ prank by Eli Rosenberg and Herman Wong

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on WaPo: A police officer fatally shot a man while responding to an emergency call now called a ‘swatting’ prank

NYLJ: Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Police Use of Force | and a video of the cross of one

NYLJ: Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Police Use of Force by Martin A. Schwartz:
Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on NYLJ: Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Police Use of Force | and a video of the cross of one

WA: Shareholder or officer of closely held corp has no personal privacy interest in corporate records under state constitution

“Paul Chase, shareholder and principal officer of Red Leaf Construction Inc., appeals the trial court’s partial denial of his motion to suppress Red Leaf’s bank records. A commissioner of this court granted discretionary review. We consider, as a matter of first impression, whether a shareholder or officer of a closely held corporation has a personal privacy interest in the corporation’s financial information. We hold that neither has this personal privacy interest and affirm.” State v. Chase, 2017 Wash. App. LEXIS 2935 (Dec. 26, 2017) (state constitution):
Continue reading →

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing, State constitution | Comments Off on WA: Shareholder or officer of closely held corp has no personal privacy interest in corporate records under state constitution

NY4: Frisk for a parking violation was unreasonable; just because def going in back of police car not good enough

Defendant was frisked without an articulable safety justification for a parking violation, and it was based on the fact the officer was putting defendant in the back of the patrol car. That’s not good enough. Also, the search of defendant’s pockets was without justification of there being any weapon there. People v. Solivan, 2017 NY Slip Op 09021, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9142 (4th Dept. Dec. 22, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Stop and frisk | Comments Off on NY4: Frisk for a parking violation was unreasonable; just because def going in back of police car not good enough

NY4: Man with a gun report led police within one minute to couple on street, and def abandoned gun

Police received a call of a man with a shotgun walking with a woman. Officers got there within a minute and saw a couple matching the description. No lights or siren were on. Defendant walked into a grassy area and shook his arm and came back to the sidewalk. One office drew down on him, and another went to the grassy area finding a sawed off shotgun. The gun was validly seized. People v. Baldwin, 2017 NY Slip Op 08963, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9058 (4th Dept. Dec. 22, 2017).

Officers were carrying mugshots with them of people to be looking for, and they recognized defendant. They noticed what was likely a sock with an L shaped object that was quite apparently a gun hanging out of his pocket. The stop was valid. People v. Jordan, 2017 NY Slip Op 09038, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9072 (4th Dept. Dec. 22, 2017).*

No motion to suppress or suppression hearing means defendant’s search issue was not preserved. People v. Lanaux, 2017 NY Slip Op 09050, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9153 (4th Dept. Dec. 22, 2017).*

Posted in Abandonment, Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY4: Man with a gun report led police within one minute to couple on street, and def abandoned gun

Techdirt: Prosecutors Benefiting Most From Police Body Cameras [Well, duh!]

Techdirt: Prosecutors Benefiting Most From Police Body Cameras by Tim Cushing:
Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras | Comments Off on Techdirt: Prosecutors Benefiting Most From Police Body Cameras [Well, duh!]

VA: P2P file sharing to access CP wasn’t a trespass on the curtilage; def consented to entry into the computer

The officer’s actions in accessing defendant’s computer files by peer-to-peer file sharing did not constitute a trespass to his curtilage in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant demonstrated his consensual participation in the file sharing community by installing file sharing software and setting the contents of a folder as “shared” thereby exposing to public access all filed in that folder. The software round up did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights because it was not sophisticated equipment but was only slightly modified from the client version of the software, allowing it to connect to only one computer and to display the connected IP address. Stickle v. Commonwealth, 2017 Va. App. LEXIS 333 (Dec. 27, 2017).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress the search that produced evidence against defendant because he shows no standing to contest the search at all, and he doesn’t even claim the evidence seized was his. Lee v. State, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 880 (Dec. 27, 2017).*

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Curtilage, Trespass | Comments Off on VA: P2P file sharing to access CP wasn’t a trespass on the curtilage; def consented to entry into the computer