Baltimore Sun: Baltimore prosecutors drop dozens more cases involving indicted officers, others shown in body camera footage by Kevin Rector:
Prosecutors in Baltimore have decided to drop dozens of additional criminal cases that relied on the testimony of eight city police officers indicted on federal racketeering charges, bringing the total to more than 100, Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby’s office said Tuesday.
The Guardian: Opinion: Why the decriminalisation of marijuana is a civil rights cause by Al Sharpton:
Generations of Americans – mostly people of colour – have been crushed by aggressive laws on marijuana. It’s time for that to change.
Cert. granted: Collins v. Virginia, 16-1027 (ScotusBlog)
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
LawNewz: DOJ Seeking Info on 6000 People Who ‘Liked’ Anti-Trump Facebook Page by Alberto Luperon
Fortune: The Trump Administration Is Targeting Anti-Trump Facebook Users by David Meyer
Engadget: ACLU challenges DOJ request for info on 6,000 anti-Trump Facebook users by David Lumb
SCOTUSBlog: Argument preview: Parties, probable cause and the Fourth Amendment (DC v. Wesby) by Amy Howe:
When District of Columbia police officers Andre Parker and Anthony Campanale responded to reports of unauthorized goings-on at a supposedly vacant home nearly a decade ago, they probably didn’t expect the evening’s events to lead to all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But that’s exactly what happened in District of Columbia v. Wesby, in which the justices are scheduled to consider whether the arrests that the officers made that night violated the Fourth Amendment, along with whether – even if they did – the partygoers can sue the arresting officers, or the police are instead immune from suit.
By statute, magistrates issuing search warrants have only district-wide jurisdiction, and here the magistrate lacked authority to issue the search warrant at issue. The state did not show any exceptions. State v. Frazier, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 861 (Sept. 25, 2017).
That eyewitness might be unreliable isn’t reason to suppress the identification for search warrant purposes. Here, the eyewitness was really confident with the identification and had plenty of time to observe. State v. Saunders, 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 724 (Sept. 25, 2017) (memorandum).*
The gag order provisions of the SCA requires the government show that disclosure “will” hamper the investigation, but the government only showed “may,” and that’s not enough. Denied without prejudice to show “will.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190319 (E.D. N.Y. May 12, 2016):
Continue reading
The search warrant for defendant’s computer was for evidence of “hacking” but produced child pornography. The lack of a time frame and search protocol for the search doesn’t make it violate the Fourth Amendment. “Considering the specific circumstances and complexities of a hacking investigation, the warrant was sufficiently particularized within the allowable margin of flexibility. See Wuagneux, 683 F.2d at 1349. The fact that there was no specific search protocol limiting the time frame of searchable electronically stored information did not render the warrant overbroad. See Khanani, 502 F.3d at 1290-91. Furthermore, the agents who executed the search obtained the warrant in good faith, acted within its scope, and acted in the objectively reasonable belief that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” United States v. Sedlak, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18459 (11th Cir. Sept. 25, 2017).
An arrest warrant for Tyler in defendant’s home didn’t justify entry here because officers didn’t show any exception to the warrant requirement. “The government has provided no authority for the proposition that the arrest warrant for Tyler, Tyler’s status as a parolee, or the ‘plain view’ doctrine serves to justify a search of Bembery’s residence for evidence to be used against Bembery.” The government didn’t address Steagald. United States v. Fisher-Bembery, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156957 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2017).
Multiple sales of drugs from the defendant’s premises described by the CI and corroboration of the CI’s tale in substantial part by the police provided probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Fayson, 2017-Ohio-7793, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4140 (3d Dist. Sept. 25, 2017).*
Officers responded to a wellness check and found two people passed out in a car. One couldn’t be roused, but defendant could and he was removed from the car and patted down for officer safety. The patdown was reasonable. Even if not, inevitable discovery supports it based on the fact a bench warrant surfaced for defendant when his name was run. United States v. Poche, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154828 (M.D. La. Sept. 22, 2017).*
Defendant can appeal the denial of return of his $299 Xbox but he still has to pay the $505 filing fee because he didn’t provide the proper IFP form. United States v. Bryant, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190263 (N.D. Ala. April 29, 2016).*
The officer had reasonable suspicion for a frisk of defendant with a 4:30 am stop and having to turn his back on defendant to investigate what was going on. Importantly, defendant kept pulling his arms out of his sleeves of his sweatshirt hiding his hands. United States v. McKnight, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155053 (D. Kan. Sept. 22, 2017).
The alleged false statement in the affidavit about the circumstances setting up a reverse buy isn’t false or material to the probable cause determination, so a Franks hearing is denied. United States v. Ardd, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151965 (W.D. Tenn. July 26, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150962 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 18, 2017).*
Defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress was not ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) it wasn’t shown to be meritorious and (2) wouldn’t affect the outcome of the conspiracy conviction. United States v. Aybar, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155112 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2017):
Continue reading
CNN International: NSA reveals 100000 foreign nationals under surveillance by Jim Sciutto and Zachary Cohen
Independent Journal Review: Lawmakers and Intelligence Community Differ on Surveillance Powers Before Reauthorization Showdown by Haley Byrd:
Continue reading
Chron.com: Appeals court: Portions of Texas ‘sanctuary city’ law can take effect by Mike Ward:
Continue reading
Defendant was convicted of DUI the day before Birchfield was decided, and he moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and he appeals. The good faith exception applies to that which happened before Birchfield (without even citing Davis). State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 172 (Sept. 22, 2017).
Police received a call from a fire station that defendant was “all over the road.” When they found him, they observed a traffic violation and stopped him. There was justification for the stop. State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 174 (Sept. 22, 2017).*
Officers lacked a reasonable basis for believing that there was anyone else in the apartment to conduct a protective sweep. Staying too long after the protective sweep is a separate constitutional violation. “Accordingly, even if the protective sweep had been permissible under the circumstances, the officers exceeded their legal authority by remaining in the apartment beyond the time necessary to conduct a protective sweep. ‘Were this not the rule, searches begun as minor intrusions on domestic privacy would expand beyond their legitimate purposes.’ Oguns, 921 F.2d at 447. The officers’ continued presence after the conclusion of the protective sweep constituted another, distinct Fourth Amendment violation.” United States v. Butler, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151710 (D. Conn. Sept. 19, 2017)
Defendant was charged with murder of another inmate in ADX Florence. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell from a search, and photographing his body was reasonable and not an invasion of privacy. United States v. Santiago, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190098 (D. Colo. July 22, 2016).
The officer’s testimony was clear and direct, and the court finds reasonable suspicion on the totality of circumstances. Two prior disciplinaries of the officer didn’t undermine his credibility because they were unrelated. United States v. Black, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151910 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 19, 2017),* adopting 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153079 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2017).*
“Defendant’s argument as to standing to challenge the search of the van is foreclosed by the recent decision of the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Long, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16740, 2017 WL 3741873 at *3 (8th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017) in which the court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy where the contractual authorized driver of a rental car did not directly provide the defendant permission to drive that car. As applied here, there is no dispute that the owner of the van did not directly provide Defendant permission to drive the van. Accordingly, he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the search of the van, and therefore lacks standing to challenge the search. Because he lacks standing, the Court need not address the legality of the search of the van and the two cellular telephones identified in Defendant’s motion.” United States v. Ramsey, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153136 (D. Minn. Aug. 10, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151927 (D. Minn. Sep. 19, 2017).*
“The initial encounter, including the officers’ questions to the Defendant, was justified under the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment. However, that initial encounter quickly gave way to a pat-down search that was justified for officer safety under … Terry v. Ohio, …. Defendant’s attempt to conceal from the officers the fact that he had a gun and his subsequent attempt to flee the pat-down justified his arrest. The drug evidence found in Defendant’s jacket was properly discovered in a search pursuant to that arrest.” United States v. Elliott, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151887 (D. N.M. Sept. 19, 2017).*
The record supports that the search was consensual by the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Malone, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151970 (W.D. Tenn. July 7, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151447 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 19, 2017).*
