GIZMODO: Don’t Buy Anyone an Echo by Adam Clark Estes:
The newfound privacy conundrum presented by installing a device that can literally listen to everything you’re saying represents a chilling new development in the age of internet-connected things. By buying a smart speaker, you’re effectively paying money to let a huge tech company surveil you.
Search of a guest’s purse during execution of a search warrant was reasonable here under the totality of the circumstances. The target of the search was a woman, and a purse is commonly associated with women. When it was found, it was not on the guest. On the totality of circumstances, it was reasonable. State v. Molnau, 2017 Minn. LEXIS 686 (Dec. 6, 2017):
Continue reading
The government filed a motion to reopen the suppression hearing after the court raised whether there was collective knowledge and the government didn’t respond. It should have seen this coming. “The Court cannot find good cause to reopen the evidentiary hearing. Contrary to the government’s assertion, the details of the pre-stop investigation of Defendant have always been relevant to this motion to suppress. While the government may not have expected to rely so heavily on its collective knowledge theory, it was well aware that the theory was available.” United States v. Quintero-Bernal, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200045 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017).
“The Defendant was unquestionably seized when he was ordered to exit the car at gunpoint. However, based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the encounter was a brief, investigatory stop rather than an arrest.” United States v. Bruce, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199641 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2017).*
Evidence suppressed in another case against defendant for a Fourth Amendment violation not admissible in this case as 404(b) evidence. People v. Walters, 2017 V.I. LEXIS 165 (Dec. 4, 2017).
Defendant argued his arrest was unlawful but not that his assault on the arresting officer was fruit of the poisonous tree. Thus, he didn’t preserve the issue for review. On plain error review, his assault on the officer is not fruit of the poisonous tree as a matter of law. State v. Burwell, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 1024 (Dec. 5, 2017).
Defendant left his house before the search warrant arrived. Under Bailey, he could not be stopped and searched away from the house. State v. Muldrow, 2017-Ohio-8839, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5272 (10th Dist. Dec. 5, 2017).
There was reasonable suspicion that defendant was under the influence to continue the detention. While the officer did not note in his report that defendant had glassy bloodshot eyes, he testified to it, and the court credits that’s what happened. State v. Hamilton, 2017-Ohio-8826, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5248 (5th Dist. Dec. 1, 2017).*
“‘If a petitioner alleges that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to … file a motion to suppress … the petitioner is generally obliged to present the witness or the other evidence at the post-conviction hearing in order to satisfy the Strickland prejudice prong.” Demarcus Sanders v. State, No. W2012-01685-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 966, 2013 WL 6021415, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 8, 2013) (citing Pylant v. State, 263 S.W.3d 854, 869 (Tenn. 2008)), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 17, 2014).’” There was no showing that the motion to suppress that wasn’t filed would have succeeded. Williams v. State, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1010 (Dec. 5, 2017). [Assume you have to try the suppression motion in the post-conviction proceeding.]
Rare.us: Horrific new bodycam footage shows what happens when a police K9 gets out of an officer’s control by Patrick McMahon:
Continue reading
AlterNet: Wisconsin Governor Walker’s Plan to Drug Test Food Stamp Applicants Would Be Wasteful, Ineffective and Perhaps Unconstitutional by Widney Brown
It’s yet another attempt to stigmatize and criminalize people living in poverty.
A Greyhound bus interdiction at Conroe, Texas was not a checkpoint stop. Two plainclothes officers got on the bus and walked down the aisle. Defendant was feigning sleeping. He ultimately consented to a search of a bag over his head on the rack. He denied ownership of the bag next to it. It was removed from the bus and sniffed by a dog. A search produced cocaine bricks. Ultimately he came off the bus by his own consent, and a key on him fit a lock on the bag with the cocaine. The driver’s consent to the passenger compartment search extended to the disclaimed bag. United States v. Wise, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24641 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2017).
The informant hearsay satisfied Aguilar-Spinneli and thus showed probable cause. The search incident of defendant’s person was thus justified. The search of a car in an adjoining town was unreasonable because there was no statutory authorization for it under state law. The state’s inevitable discovery argument is rejected that the other town’s police would have searched it anyway is rejected as unproven. Commonwealth v. Luna, 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 156 (Dec. 5, 2017).
The USMJ did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that the warrantless searches were invalid. The record supports that defendant’s wife consented to the searches, too. United States v. Scanlon, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199234 (W.D. N.Y. Dec. 4, 2017).*
The affidavit for the search warrant attached defendant’s sealed indictment. Together they showed probable cause. Defendant doesn’t get a Franks hearing because of the omission that he was in the military. United States v. Owens, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199143 (W.D. N.Y. Dec. 4, 2017).
2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because there clearly was probable cause for issuance of the search warrants and application of the good faith exception if not. Flanders v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199851 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2017).*
Defendant was on supervised release, and he had a computer search condition. The court concludes that any reasonable person would understand a cell phone would be a “computer” for the search condition. In any event, it had already been searched by local police under a search warrant. United States v. Phillips, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199720 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 6, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198569 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 4, 2017). [After all: before Riley we argued cell phones were “computers” subject to the warrant requirement.”]
The Register (UK): Looking through walls, now easier than ever by Thomas Claburn:
Boffins working to put everyone in glass houses [Kyllo redux, with better technology]
Continue reading
Techdirt: Things The Intelligence Community Is Cool With: Backdoor Searches, Skirting Reporting Requirements, Parallel Construction by Tim Cushing:
Continue reading
MSNBC: FBI Director seems to confirm use of FISA warrants in Russia Probe (video)
No wonder the President wants a private CIA.
NYTimes: Warrantless Surveillance Can Continue Even if Law Expires, Officials Say by Charlie Savage:
The Trump administration has decided that the National Security Agency and the F.B.I. can lawfully keep operating their warrantless surveillance program even if Congress fails to extend the law authorizing it before an expiration date of New Year’s Eve, according to American officials.
A CI “working off” his own case is not inherently unbelievable. If anything, such a CI has an incentive to be truthful because, if he’s not, he could lose a USSG § 5K1.1 reduction for not substantially assisting the government. United States v. Carrera, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198530 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017):
Continue reading
Defendant was alleged to have sold quantities of firearms more than once. Six month old information in a gun sale case was not stale. United States v. Fisher-Bland, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199259 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198424 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 4, 2017)
The officers saw defendant pull something from his pocket and exchange it for money in a high crime area of the Bronx known for drug dealing. That was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Matos, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198950 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2017).
After a lawful seizure of a cell phone and issuance of a search warrant to search it, a 16 day delay in actually searching the phone did not make it unreasonable. United States v. Brantley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198432 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 4, 2017):
Continue reading
If a criminal case is not pending, a motion for return of property is treated as a new civil action, and should proceed accordingly (following state and federal cases, most recently Pristine Pre-Owned Auto, Inc. v. Courrier, 236 W. Va. 720, 783 S.E.2d 585 (2016)). Here there was an administrative seizure of medication from a veterinarian’s office. In re Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 2017 Guam 15, 2017 Guam 15 (Dec. 1, 2017).
The court finds the officer’s testimony credible that he saw defendant with a gun in hand for about four seconds before hiding it, and this gave reasonable suspicion for a patdown. United States v. Cross, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193747 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2017).*
