California Lawyer: Gag Orders on Grand Jury Subpoenas to Banks: The Next First Amendment Frontier? by Joshua M. Robbins & Adam M. Sechooler:
It is not uncommon for federal prosecutors to use grand jury subpoenas to force banks to produce their customers’ financial records—while barring the banks from telling their customers. Is that constitutional?
Defendant arrived at a hospital ER after he was shot. His clothing was cut off him and on the floor, and the officer’s seizure was valid because it was in plain view and had clear evidentiary value from blood and bullet holes. It was also alternatively valid as an emergency seizure. United States v. Pugh, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203387 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202529 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2017):
Continue reading
A CI’s reference to guns in defendant’s house in Dec. 2016 was not stale by April 2017. Defendant’s arguments about a Franks violation are rejected for lack of materiality to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Wilson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202541 (D. Mont. Dec. 8, 2017).
Birchfield was decided just before defendant’s trial, and he was permitted “in the interest of justice” to file an additional motion to suppress based on that. Commonwealth v. Torres, 2017 PA Super 381, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 994 (Dec. 8, 2017).*
Defendant was properly convicted of false arrest as a deprivation of civil rights. He argued the attenuation doctrine that there was an independent source of information. There wasn’t, and the independent source doctrine is for the exclusionary rule not a defense to the crime of false arrest under color of law. United States v. Blakeney, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24883 (8th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017).
Defendant’s search and seizure claims were resolved in the direct appeal and couldn’t be raised in post-conviction. State v. Salasky, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 636 (Dec. 5, 2017).*
The stop was based on speeding that was at least partially corroborated by the dashcam video. The video also supported defendant’s consent to search. State v. Johnson, 2017-Ohio-8909, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5332 (2d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017).*
Defendant argued that the alleged child pornography was mere child nudity, and thus not a crime. “The Court concludes that the information contained in each of the four warrant applications was sufficient to permit the reviewing magistrate judges to conclude that there was a fair probability that child pornography or evidence of the sexual exploitation of children would be found in the places to be searched.” United States v. Pearson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202476 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201690 (D. Minn. Dec. 7, 2017).
Minor girls told of defendant taking pictures of them. Defendant’s interaction with the police on his porch was consensual. Ultimately he invited them inside and showed them his computer room. They developed probable cause from their observations that he could have been grooming young girls for more explicit pictures by the time they sought his consent. They thus had it when they sought a search warrant. United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203147 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 12, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202303 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2017).*
Defendant didn’t get a ruling on his motion to suppress before trial. At trial, he didn’t object to one item being admitted but did to another, but not on Fourth Amendment grounds. Defendant waived his Fourth Amendment claim by not getting a ruling and not objecting timely. Smith v. State, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 968 (Dec. 11, 2017).
Raising a Fourth Amendment claim only at oral argument is waiver. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the Fourth Amendment is similarly waived. People v. Roberson, 2017 Guam 18, 2017 Guam LEXIS 16 (Dec. 7, 2017).
The state Department of Environmental Protection sought an injunction against the livestock business to get it to stop denying access to the business property for inspection of its composting operation. Because the area to be inspected was open fields, the company has no real reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the inspections will be permitted. There are no buildings or enclosures there. State v. Dubois Livestock, Inc., 2017 ME 223, 2017 Me. LEXIS 249 (Dec. 7, 2017).
The officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI based on observations despite defendant passing a field sobriety test. State v. Riggins, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 641 (Dec. 7, 2017).*
The state via a grand jury request sought the password to defendant’s iPhone. Production of the password would implicate self-incrimination concerns, but, here, it’s a foregone conclusion that it’s his phone and there are no self-incrimination concerns. Civil contempt affirmed In the Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 158 (Dec. 11, 2017):
Continue reading
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his car under the state constitution from a surreptitious silent video recording of a drug transaction. The trial court erred in granting it. Indeed, the filing of the motion to suppress on the eve of trial was too late. The defense filed numerous pretrial motions, but not this one, and it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to consider it so late. Commonwealth v. Enos, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1002 (Dec. 8, 2017) (memorandum).
There was reasonable suspicion to extend defendant’s stop because the paperwork on the car didn’t match his story and then the way he answered questions. [This is really thin.] State v. $127,930 United States Currency, 2017 ND 282, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 293 (Dec. 7, 2017).*
The officers here noticed no front license plate, and they turned around and defendant fled. That was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Hodgkin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199936 (D. Nev. May 24, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199426 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2017).*
The lack of a license plate was justification for defendant’s stop. Also, as the officer was trying to close the distance between them, defendant was evading him. The stop produced an outstanding warrant. Doing a separate Strieff analysis, even if there was no reasonable suspicion, the finding of the warrant was sufficiently attenuated to justify the arrest and impoundment of the car, which was also lawful. United States v. Hodgkin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199936 (D.Nev. May 24, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199426 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2017).*
“Valenzuela had actual authority to consent to the search, or at the very least, the officer had a reasonable belief she had common authority over the residence. E.g., United States v. Matlock, …; see also Illinois v. Rodriguez, …. Valenzuela called officers to the scene to help retrieve her belongings from inside the home. One of the officers was familiar with Valenzuela’s living situation because he had been called to the residence in the past. He also knew she was Cano’s girlfriend, and that she stored belongings in the house. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the officers had a reasonable belief Valenzuela had common authority over the residence and was, therefore, able to consent to their entry.” United States v. Cano, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24654 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2017).
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense and left the door open, and a gun was visible in plain view. State v. King, 2017-Ohio-8910, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5333 (2d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017).*
The officer received an anonymous call about drug deals being done from a car in a shopping center parking lot. He pulled up to a parked car to check it out and it was occupied and smelled of burning marijuana. That was probable cause for the automobile exception, and the encounter wasn’t a stop. State v. Edwards, 2017-Ohio-8867, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5302 (8th Dist. Dec. 7, 2017);* State v. Alim, 2017-Ohio-8868, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5298 (8th Dist. Dec. 7, 2017).*
Defendant was stopped for following too close and throwing something out the window. When the officer got to the window, the car smelled like an air freshener had just been sprayed. He asked questions about the trip and was getting answers that made no sense to him. By the time he asked for consent and it was refused, the officer already had reasonable suspicion. United States v. Shuler, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201197 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2017).*
NBC Chicago: Every Chicago Patrol Officer Equipped With a Body Camera:
Chicago now has the largest deployment of body cameras in the country, according to CPD, which previously said the total number of cameras throughout the department would reach 7,000.
Defendant’s search issue was decided in a prior appeal, and that makes it law of the case. State v. Weilacker, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1018 (Dec. 8, 2017).
The government doesn’t oppose return of some of the seized evidence, so the Rule 41(g) motion is granted in part. United States v. Jackson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202346 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2017).*
Recognizing confusion in state case law that Brendlin still does not give standing to a passenger to challenge a stop [something completely wrong], the stop was justified, so the standing question doesn’t have to be decided. State v. Campbell, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 638 (Dec. 7, 2017).*
Defendant was suspected of a bank robbery, and the government presented a GPS tracking warrant affidavit to an Indiana judge to track defendant in Indiana. Shortly thereafter, defendant drove to Los Angeles, and he was stopped for a traffic offense in Nebraska. Concerned that might interfere with their investigation, the FBI tried to check on what was going on in Nebraska and to photograph the inside of the car. Defendant got a warning ticket and continued on to LA and stopped near a bank. The FBI figured rightly that defendant was casing a bank to rob, and, sure enough, he did and they caught him. The tracking of the GPS to LA was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, following United States v. Castetter, 865 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 2017) (posted here). United States v. Brewer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201509 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 7, 2017).
Child pornography on defendant’s cell phone is nexus to his computer. Computers are common storage devices for cell phone pictures and information. “Common sense suggests that if an individual has images of child pornography downloaded to one electronic device, the individual likely has similar, if not the same, images on other electronic devices the individual possesses. The state court judge, however, did not have to rely solely upon his own common sense to find probable cause.” United States v. Jack, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172135 (D. Me. Oct. 18, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198761 (D. Me. Dec. 4, 2017).
The officer who stopped defendant knew from other officers that he was a suspect in drug dealing, and that informed his information gathering during the stop that rose to reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. United States v. Quintero-Bernal, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201986 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017).*
Defendant wanted to plead guilty in his drug case at the first appearance, and defense counsel persuaded him to wait until discovery was complete. Defendant then wanted to plead, but later he claimed that defense counsel failed to consider all the discovery and file motions to suppress. Defendant doesn’t even allege that the motions to suppress would have been granted if they had been pursued. State v. Taylor, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 632 (Nov. 30, 2017).*
Defendant’s 2255 claim involving his search wasn’t directly presented as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If it was a pure search claim it was waived by the plea agreement. As to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it doesn’t show how he could conceivably win. Smith v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200709 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2017).*
Defendant’s 2255 search and seizure claim was rejected on direct appeal after the conviction, so it can’t be the subject of a 2255. United States v. Huff, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199577 (D. Kan. Dec. 5, 2017).*
Defendant was hostile and aggressive toward officers, and a second patdown was conducted after he was handcuffed finding a gun. His actions continued and heightened concern that he had a weapon on him. J.R. v. State, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 799 (Dec. 8, 2017).
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant, and whether his obstruction was sufficient to charge him is a question for trial. The motion to dismiss should not have been granted. State v. Gaines, 2017-Ohio-8906, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5327 (2d Dist. Dec. 8, 2017).*
Defendant was convicted of robbery, and one of the things taken was an iPhone that was tracked by “find my iPhone” to capture defendant and his co-conspirators. Despite DNA and lack of an ID from the victim, the possession of the phone and other of the victim’s propertly shortly thereafter was sufficient evidence to convict. State v. Bybee, 2017-Ohio-8869, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5299 (8th Dist. Dec. 7, 2017).*
