Cato: Protecting the Home from Warrantless Searches: Collins v. Virginia

Cato: Protecting the Home from Warrantless Searches by Jay Schweikert:
Continue reading →

Posted in Common law, SCOTUS | Comments Off on Cato: Protecting the Home from Warrantless Searches: Collins v. Virginia

N.D.Ga.: NY arrest warrant executed in GA violated NY law but not 4A, and suppression of gun found on arrest would not be granted

There was a New York local court arrest warrant for defendant, and he was arrested on it in Georgia, and then indicted in federal Georgia for being a felon in possession. The government conceded that the arrest violated New York state law, but that’s not important under the Fourth Amendment in federal court in Georgia. United States v. Patterson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191860 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191746 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2016):
Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Conflict of laws | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: NY arrest warrant executed in GA violated NY law but not 4A, and suppression of gun found on arrest would not be granted

W.D.La.: Parole search waiver applies to the car def borrowed since he had standing in it

Defendant’s parole search condition extended to a car he borrowed. After all, he had sufficient connection to the car to have standing to challenge a search. United States v. Meaux, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189415 (W.D. La. Oct. 27, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189099 (W.D. La. Nov. 15, 2017).

Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant and conducted a protective sweep looking for him and others, and they found a gun safe in the house. Defendant was a felon. Defendant, not a “newcomer to the law” was found to have consented to opening the safe. United States v. Olejniczak, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189898 (W.D. N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189317 (W.D. N.Y. Nov. 15, 2017).

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Parole search waiver applies to the car def borrowed since he had standing in it

D.Kan.: State law does apply under 4A in parole searches; here, there was a reasonable basis for it

In the Tenth Circuit, the area of state probation and parole search is about the only area where the Fourth Amendment is informed by state law, and state law determines limits on state actors in the first instance, and then Fourth Amendment on ultimate reasonableness. Yet, a CODIS hit on DNA determined reasonableness here. United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187003 (D. Kan. Nov. 13, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.Kan.: State law does apply under 4A in parole searches; here, there was a reasonable basis for it

D.N.M.: Def’s claim the officer conducted a pre-search of all bags on a Greyhound bus was based on speculation

The court does not buy defendant’s argument that the officer here waited until all luggage was removed from a Greyhound bus to conduct a feel-up tactile search of the bags in such a way to avoid Greyhound’s surveillance cameras. That’s speculation that it happened, and the officer was credible in his denials that happened. Speculation isn’t proof and defendant failed in his burden of showing that there was a pre-search of the bags. United States v. Sanchez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191827 (D. N.M. March 1, 2016).*

Defendant’s arrest while he was in his probation office for having a weapon he brought into probation to turn in was with probable cause. United States v. Becerra, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187192 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2017).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Probable cause, Search | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Def’s claim the officer conducted a pre-search of all bags on a Greyhound bus was based on speculation

LA5: CI’s story provided PC for defendant’s stop for a hand-to-hand transaction police then observed

The CI provided probable cause for defendant’s stop for a hand-to-hand transaction. The CI’s story was that was what was going down, and defendant came up to the car and leaned in. While the officers didn’t see what happened in the car, that fit the CI’s story. Officers followed and stopped him later. State v. Bardell, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 2089 (La.App. 5 Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).*

The I-19 immigration checkpoint between Nogales and Tucson is constitutional [probably for the 100th time]. It complies with every court’s standards. United States v. Audelo-Marquez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190652 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2017).*

Posted in Immigration checkpoints, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on LA5: CI’s story provided PC for defendant’s stop for a hand-to-hand transaction police then observed

Techdirt: Investigation Finds Google Collected Location Data Even With Location Services Turned Off

Techdirt: Investigation Finds Google Collected Location Data Even With Location Services Turned Off by Tim Cushing:

This does raise some interesting Fourth Amendment questions, even if the circumstances under which the collection occurred make it unlikely these factors will ever be the centerpiece of a motion to suppress evidence.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on Techdirt: Investigation Finds Google Collected Location Data Even With Location Services Turned Off

M.D.N.C.: To credit def’s 2255 was to then show he repeatedly lied to arresting officers; denied

Defendant’s 2255 version of events was implausible because, to prevail on this claim, he’d have to admit that he repeatedly lied to the officers who interviewed him when he consented to a search of his computers. That’s reason enough to deny the claim. Debaere v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189063 (M.D. N.C. Oct. 20, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on M.D.N.C.: To credit def’s 2255 was to then show he repeatedly lied to arresting officers; denied

D.N.M.: Def was detained at the border and inside a building, but he wasn’t “in custody” for Miranda purposes

Defendant was detained at the border and inside a building, but he wasn’t “in custody” for Miranda purposes. “Bustillos-Ramirez’s time seated at the table presents a situation similar to those cited in which the courts found that the defendant was not in custody. Although Bustillos-Ramirez was not free to leave, the circumstances of the detention would lead a reasonable innocent person to believe that he would be free to go once the search was over and he answered any questions. Defendant remained in a public place, the officers acted in a non-threatening manner and asked about the vehicle and his travel plans, he was only detained at the table while the officers searched the vehicle, and he was not restrained or locked up in any manner. Therefore, Defendant was detained while seated at the table, but he was not yet in custody for purposes of Miranda.” United States v. Bustillos-Ramirez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191803 (D. N.M. March 28, 2016).

“The search was pursuant to a federal search warrant and Defendant has failed to show how the warrant was not supported by probable cause or otherwise defective. … Defendant cannot and has not shown that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s deficiencies prejudiced his defense.” United States v. Whaley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186838 (D. S.D. Nov. 13, 2017).*

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Def was detained at the border and inside a building, but he wasn’t “in custody” for Miranda purposes

NE: SW for “any and all firearms” from def’s place in a murder investigation wasn’t constitutionally imparticular

The search warrant here sought “any and all firearms” from defendant’s place. The police didn’t know whether a rifle or a handgun did the killing, but it was possible it was a rifle stuffed in his pants leg. The search warrant was not constitutionally imparticular and didn’t authorize a general search. State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 199 (Nov. 17, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity | Comments Off on NE: SW for “any and all firearms” from def’s place in a murder investigation wasn’t constitutionally imparticular

WaPo: The Volokh Conspiracy Blog: Four thoughts on the briefing in Carpenter v. United States

WaPo: The Volokh Conspiracy Blog: Four thoughts on the briefing in Carpenter v. United States by Orin Kerr:

The Supreme Court will hear argument on Nov. 29th in Carpenter v. United States, a case on whether the Fourth Amendment applies to government collection of historical cell-site records. I wrote an amicus brief in the case that explains many of my views on it. I have four additional thoughts on the briefing, however, so I figured I would offer them here.

Posted in Cell site location information, SCOTUS | Comments Off on WaPo: The Volokh Conspiracy Blog: Four thoughts on the briefing in Carpenter v. United States

VA: RS not required for a jail book-in strip search

Reasonable suspicion is not required for a jail book-in strip search. Defendant was arrested for a drug offense, and he was freely moving around in book-in, but a search ultimately happened, and a baggie of cocaine was protruding from his rectum. Cole v. Commonwealth, 2017 Va. LEXIS 162 (Nov. 16, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Special needs | Comments Off on VA: RS not required for a jail book-in strip search

CA11: Failure to object to R&R was waiver of search issue

Defendant didn’t object to the magistrate’s R&R. The stop was found valid in the district court for having a tag light out and then consenting to a search. United States v. Jackson, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23048 (11th Cir. Nov. 16, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on CA11: Failure to object to R&R was waiver of search issue

The Marshall Project: A ‘Routine’ Stop Almost Ended My Career Before It Started

The Marshall Project: A ‘Routine’ Stop Almost Ended My Career Before It Started by Johnathan S. Perkins:

Sometimes there’s danger in speaking out against perceived police misconduct.

Posted in Police misconduct | Comments Off on The Marshall Project: A ‘Routine’ Stop Almost Ended My Career Before It Started

MT: Element of offense that other state’s offense be similar to MT’s doesn’t have to be proved for PC

The affidavit for a telephonic search warrant included that defendant had been convicted of DUI under another state’s law didn’t have to also meet the statutory requirement that the other state’s offense was “similar” to Montana’s. That was an issue for trial. City of Missoula v. Williams, 2017 MT 282, 2017 Mont. LEXIS 680 (Nov. 17, 2017).

On the totality, defendant’s consent was voluntary. People v. Fioretti, 2017 NY Slip Op 08133, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8182 (4th Dept. Nov. 17, 2017).*

Posted in Consent, Probable cause | Comments Off on MT: Element of offense that other state’s offense be similar to MT’s doesn’t have to be proved for PC

CA3: Pointing a gun at ptf during arrest and making him lie on the ground is not excessive force

“Krasley is alleged to have pointed a gun at Pearson and required him to lie on the ground, but the charge of promoting prostitution was serious, Pearson was in a vehicle and thus could have fled, and Pearson was uninjured. There is thus no plausible claim that the force used by Krasley in effecting Pearson’s arrest was excessive.” The seizure of plaintiff’s cell phones were also reasonable. Pearson v. Krasley, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22912 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on CA3: Pointing a gun at ptf during arrest and making him lie on the ground is not excessive force

CA10: Jury instruction that search issue was for the court and not the jury didn’t lessen the govt’s burden of proof

Defendant’s challenge to the investigative techniques in this child rape case led the district court to instruct the jury that the propriety of searches and seizures were questions for the court. The defense objected that the instruction lessened the government’s burden, but it did not. United States v. Jenks, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23033 (10th Cir. Nov. 16, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof | Comments Off on CA10: Jury instruction that search issue was for the court and not the jury didn’t lessen the govt’s burden of proof

NY, Kings Co.: Use of a Stingray violates defendant’s REP in his cell phone

Use of a Stingray violates defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone. It cannot be compared at all to a pen register. People v. Gordon, 2017 NY Slip Op 27364, 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4285 (Kings Co. Nov. 3, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site simulators | Comments Off on NY, Kings Co.: Use of a Stingray violates defendant’s REP in his cell phone

OH12: Def’s petition for discretionary review dismissed for failure to file briefs leaves appellate result intact

The trial court suppressed but the court of appeals reversed. The supreme court granted discretionary review, but it was dismissed for defendant’s failure to file a brief. The case was remanded back to the trial court, and the appellate reversal was law of the case where discretionary review was dismissed. State v. Clayton, 2017-Ohio-8538, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4951 (12th Dist. Nov. 13, 2017).

Investigating a burglary, the officer found the defendant with a baggie of marijuana sticking out of his pocket. That was a valid plain view. State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-8558, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4968 (1st Dist. Nov. 15, 2017).*

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Standards of review | Comments Off on OH12: Def’s petition for discretionary review dismissed for failure to file briefs leaves appellate result intact

TX13: Search incident can occur before formal arrest as long as both are justified

Search incident can occur before formal arrest as long as both are justified. Hill v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 10749 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg, Nov. 16, 2017) (memorandum).*

Appellant’s claims that VA attorneys hacked her computer in violation of the Fourth Amendment wasn’t within the VA court’s jurisdiction. Melvin v. Shulkin, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22639 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2017).*

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Search incident | Comments Off on TX13: Search incident can occur before formal arrest as long as both are justified