LATimes: Editorial: Fix a surveillance law to stop backdoor searches of Americans Congress is currently deciding:
whether to let the National Security Agency continue to eavesdrop on the phone calls, emails and other electronic communications of foreigners located abroad. This foreign intelligence program – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – expires at the end of the year.
Techdirt: Latest DOJ WTFness: Encryption Is Like A Locked House That Won’t Let Its Owners Back Inside by Tim Cushing:
Continue reading
A Domino’s driver was robbed and hit with a baseball bat and knocked out. Police looked for possible robbers but found nobody. A “confidential source of information” (actually citizen informant who’s identity was withheld for protection against retaliation) said that two men ran to 217 Springer Drive and one was carrying a pizza delivery type bag. They went to the address, and the people answering the door didn’t match the description. They got the IP information for the pizza order, and it came back to 217 Springer, but it was an unsecured wireless connection. Nevertheless, they got a search warrant for that address based on that 23 hours after the robbery, and they found plenty of evidence that the occupants of that address were the robbers, including stuff taken from the driver and a baseball bat. “We hold that based on the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit provided a substantial basis for the reviewing magistrate to conclude that probable cause existed to justify issuing a search warrant for 217 Springer Drive. The affidavit contained sufficient facts demonstrating the reliability of the CSI’s information, most of which was previously and independently corroborated by HCSD’s own thorough investigation. Furthermore, the affidavit provided a detailed, chronological summary of HCSD’s rapidly unfolding investigation and established the urgent need to obtain a search warrant before critical evidence might be destroyed.” State v. McPhaul, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 924 (Nov. 7, 2017).
Defendant was 65, in ill-health, and his mother talked to him every day. When she hadn’t heard from him, she called the police to check on him. At the house, nobody answered the door, the lights were on, there was no car, and the neighbors said they hadn’t seen him in days. “Deputy Johnson called Defendant’s mother to apprise her of the situation. After reiterating her concerns for her son’s health and safety, she implored Deputy Johnson to ‘use whatever means necessary’ to ensure that her son was alright. He complied and entered Defendant’s living room through the open window.” He stumbled into a small grow operation. He applied for a search warrant. The entry was valid under the emergency aid exception. State v. Adams, 2017 UT App 205, 2017 Utah App. LEXIS 211 (Nov. 9, 2017).
Pennsylvania State Police and environmental inspectors set up a roadblock into a landfill to inspect commercial trucks. In defendant’s truck they found some beer, and he was charged with DWI and “unlawful activities.” The stop and inspect of defendant’s truck was valid under Burger. Commonwealth v. Maguire, 2017 PA Super 351, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 895 (Nov. 8, 2017) (dissent):
Continue reading
The Hill: Court limits DOJ warrant for Facebook data on Trump protesters by Morgan Chalfant:
Continue reading
WBAL: Device tells police when people were using cellphone while driving by David Collins:
Continue reading
Rare Houston: Recent report shows Texas National Guard installed spy devices on surveillance planes by John Bogna:
Continue reading
Cert. granted: Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (ScotusBlog)
Issue: Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
See Miami Herald: First the city sunk his houseboat. Now, he’s at the highest court over free speech case by Monique O. Madan
Defendant’s backpack was on him when arrested, and it was still subject to police inventory for all the policies of inventory. State v. Davis, 2017 N.M. LEXIS 86 (Nov. 9, 2017), revg, 2016-NMCA-073, 387 P.3d 274 (posted here):
Continue reading
With a due comparison to Det. Martin McFadden’s actions in observing John W. Terry and Richard D. Chilton in Terry v. Ohio, the officer on the totality was justified in inquiring of defendant what he was doing. Plaintiff wasn’t arrested, but he sued the officer, and the case was dismissed as a “discretionary function” and here affirmed. Schreiner v. Hodge, 2017 Kan. App. LEXIS 81 (Nov. 9, 2017):
Continue reading
Defendant “argues LPD acted on that hunch when deciding the white Ford Explorer was involved in the February bank robbery, and there was no proof beyond a speculative hunch that the February suspect and the April suspect were the same person.” The court disagrees because the totality of facts is more than a hunch and it adds up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. McCain, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186430 (D. Neb. Sept. 18, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181025 (D. Neb. Nov. 1, 2017).*
Illogical account of missing exit to girlfriend’s house three exits back, possession of $372, mutually contradictory statements about girlfriend, lying about just moving there, and not looking the officer in the eye when talking about girlfriend was reasonable suspicion and, with a criminal history check, all lawful actions reasonably extending the stop under Rodriguez. State v. Bullock, 2017 N.C. LEXIS 896 (Nov. 3, 2017),* rev’g 785 S.E.2d 746 (N.C. App. 2016).*
Officers received a report of a Friday night armed robbery of an Hispanic male by two black men wearing black. “The officer was aware that would-be robbers targeted this area because it contained a number of bars frequented on weekend evenings by Hispanic immigrants who had just been paid in cash. He further knew that, after robbing their victims, the robbers frequently fled on foot into the surrounding neighborhoods. “ This was thus a high crime area. Once in the area, the officers saw a single black male wearing black. They pulled up to him and he acted unusually nervous. “As the district court noted, ‘[s]topping an individual who matches the description of an armed robber in relative close proximity to the crime scene, within ten minutes of the crime occurring, and patting them down for weapons is well within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment and Terry.’” United States v. Felix, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22375 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017).
Omission of the fact that there were 300 text messages from the affidavit for search warrant between defendant’s text to victim and acquiring the phone was not material for probable cause purposes. Omission of references to others wasn’t material: “Although Det. Michael’s decision to reference only defendant’s communications with Masi in the affidavit was certainly intentional, his choice to exclude other individuals who also communicated with Masi on March 31 does not take away from the probable cause evident in the May 4 affidavit—that, taking the affidavit as a whole, there was probable cause to search defendant’s cell phone.” The police witnesses to the arrest had differing accounts, and the trial judge made credibility determinations among them which are not clearly erroneous. State v. Tejeda, 2017 R.I. LEXIS 106 (Nov. 8, 2017).
The trial judge’s finding that there were no exigent circumstances is reversed. Her findings of fact omitted serious facts in support of exigency, and thus was clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Arias, 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 148 (Nov. 9, 2017):
Continue reading
Politico: Texas killings may aid Rosenstein’s crusade on encryption by Eric Geller:
Continue reading
Police developed defendant as a suspect in a string of five armed robberies in a month, and they sought and obtained an exigent circumstances cell phone ping order of defendant’s phone. His argument is that there were no exigent circumstances because nothing was happening at the moment. The court credits the police belief that exigency existed because it was only a matter of time until a sixth armed robbery occurred and a victim could get shot because he or she was uncooperative. Alternatively, the court applies the good faith exception to the exigency ping request. State v. Isaac, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 2039 (La.App. 5 Cir. Oct. 25, 2017)
Continue reading
