Defendant was arrested with probable cause, which he concedes, and officers got a search warrant for x-rays to see if he had drugs hidden in his body (“body packing”). After the x-ray was inconclusive, defendant was detained longer. The probable cause did not dissipate because the doctor performing the x-ray noted that a mass of drugs might not show on an x-ray if it had a similar density to the body’s organs or even the contents of his bowels. United States v. Pabon, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17471 (2d Cir. Sept. 11, 2017):
Continue reading →

Defendants committed battery on police officer, a new crime, even if the frisk of the person was illegal, it’s the new crime is not excludable. K.C. v. State, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 387 (Sept. 8, 2017).

The timeline belied exigency and the claims of exigency by the state are belied by the facts. State v. Hodge, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 831 (Sept. 8, 2017).

Reasonable suspicion was a close call, but not enough to justify the stop. If the court doesn’t suppress, everything might end up as reasonable suspicion. United States v. Aguilera, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145199 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017)*:
Continue reading →

WaPo: How Silicon Valley is erasing your individuality by Franklin Foer:
Continue reading →

Saying to defendant “come here” when the officer saw defendant on the street and suspected a violation of the curfew law was not a substantial interference with defendant’s liberty to be a seizure. Commonwealth v. Newsome, 2017 PA Super 290, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 680 (Sept. 7, 2017).

Defendant was lawfully in custody at the police station after his arrest with his vehicle when he was seen putting a baggie of drugs in his mouth, which was lawfully seized. Thomas v. State, 2017 Ind. LEXIS 659 (Sept. 7, 2017).*

Defendant had standing in a rent-by-the-hour room. Officers were there for a sting, and they could “freeze” the premises to protect against destruction of evidence to get a warrant. Commonwealth v. Owens, 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 121 (Sept. 11, 2017).

Defendant didn’t rent the motel room he was in, and the woman who did had the apparent authority to consent to a search of the room and seizure of six cell phones. A search warrant was later issued for the cell phones. Defendant objected to consent the day before the search, but he was in custody by then. See Fernandez v. California. United States v. Rutherford, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145696 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 18, 2017).*

techdirt: Thanks To The DEA And Drug War, Your Prescription Records Have Zero Expectation Of Privacy by Tim Cushing:
Continue reading →

Even if Carpenter goes in favor of the privacy interest, it has no effect on CSLI searches that occurred before. A bench warrant that showed up for defendant’s arrest justified a search incident of his person. There was also probable cause for a search of his vehicle. United States v. Coles, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145489 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2017).

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied: The traffic stop was valid since defendant’s fiancée failed to use her turn signal, and even if the information an informant provided was unreliable, it would not warrant suppression of the evidence. Defendant’s continued detention was not unlawful under the totality of circumstances because the officer testified that he knew defendant, that he had received reliable information from a CI defendant had drugs in the vehicle, and that defendant’s demeanor continued to make him nervous. Defendant’s fiancée’s consent to the search of the vehicle was obtained prior to the completion of the traffic stop and was freely given. Rainey v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 427, 2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 461 (Sept. 6, 2017).*

Defendant’s vehicle was impounded because he was arrested for DUI at a gas pump. In the inventory, the officer saw parts (but not all) of an apparent methamphetamine lab. Also in the car was a sealed box received in the mail. The box could reasonably be inventoried, and the contents was more stuff to make meth. People v. Camarigg, 2017 COA 115, 2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 1135 (Sept. 7, 2017).

Defendant pulled into a convenience store and stopped at the gas pump, but the gas filler door was on the wrong side. He sat for 10 minutes when another vehicle pulled up, and, for all appearances, a hand-to-hand transaction occurred. It was a high crime area, and this was all reasonable suspicion. United States v. Kerr, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142084 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 31, 2017).*

NYTimes: Witness Warrants Were Misused in Queens and Elsewhere, Court Papers Say by Alan Feurer:
Continue reading →

The officer here was driving around running LPNs, and defendant’s came back from BMV as “expired” even though that day was the last day of the registration, October 15, 2015. He stopped defendant, and several warrants surfaced on defendant. The stop was in good faith reliance on the BMV record. It would logically appear, from other statutes, that the registration didn’t expire until midnight. “Even assuming that Officer Taylor was ultimately mistaken in his belief that a violation occurred, the traffic stop was based upon a good faith, reasonable belief that a statutory infraction had occurred.” Therefore, it was reasonable under Heien v. North Carolina. Dowdy v. State, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 386 (Sept. 7, 2017).

Officer’s “sucker-punch” of store clerk then beating him for no apparent reason for two minutes justified his conviction for violating the store clerk’s Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. Brown, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17403 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2017):
Continue reading →

911 call of people inside a neighbor’s home with flashlights was at least reasonable suspicion of a burglary in process to justify a warrantless entry. State v. Head, 2017-Ohio-7473, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3787 (5th Dist. Sept. 6, 2017).

The smell of a working methamphetamine lab in defendant’s motel room was exigency for police entry, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress. State v. Thomason, 2017-Ohio-7447, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3767 (11th Dist. Sept. 5, 2017).

A Charles and the public safety exception, a person stopped can be asked whether he’s armed. Here, defendant wasn’t in custody when he admitted he had a gun, and the question was valid anyway. United States v. Esparza, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143533 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2017).

Border Patrol officers responded to a desert sensor and saw the defendant who fled from them. That was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Sanchez-Ochoa, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143473 (D. Ariz. Aug. 11, 2017).*

Two vials of defendant’s blood were drawn under implied consent. He was told the second would be kept for him, but it was separately tested for drugs. The second warrantless search of the blood violated the Fourth Amendment. People v. Pickard, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 776 (App. Div.–San Diego June 30, 2017).

Defendant’s consent to the blood draw was voluntary. State v. Newsom, 2017 La. App. LEXIS 1561 (La.App. 3 Cir. Sept. 6, 2017).*

Defendant failed to show voluntary consent to this search for defendant’s blood. People v. Ling, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 774 (App. Div.–San Mateo May 5, 2017).*

The state failed to show that the inventory of defendant’s car was undertaken in accord with police inventory policy. Under California law, the impoundment itself must be justified. People v. Wallace, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 775 (1st Dist. Sept. 7, 2017).

Defendant was arrested for enticement of a minor, and his “soon to be estranged wife” went into their motel room and obtained his cell phones which she gave to the police. Considering the credibility of the witnesses, this was a private search. United States v. Rutherford, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144556 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 7, 2017).*

When the government agrees to not use the challenged evidence, the motion to suppress is moot. United States v. Walls, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142915 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2017).*

Defendant claimed standing as an overnight guest, but nothing in the evidence supported that. He has the burden and he failed to show anything. Even if the court assumes he was there overnight, he didn’t show he was an “overnight guest.” United States v. Dukes, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142999 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143205 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 5, 2017).

“In this case, Mincey does not challenge the initial traffic stop, he challenges only the duration of the stop, and we can find no constitutional error in its duration. From the moment Deputy Bruce initiated the traffic stop, Mincey acted in ways that distinguished himself from the average traveler.” [I.e., reasonable suspicion]United States v. Mincey, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15809 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2017).*

The statute of limitations for a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 starts from the time of the search and seizure. Even if tolling were to apply here while plaintiff challenged his conviction, the case was filed way too late. Jaramillo v. Renner, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17224 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2017):
Continue reading →

Police responded to a loose horse on the highway, and, once it was under control it was taken back to defendant’s property, and that justified entry into the curtilage. People v. Williams, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 777 (2d Dist. Sept. 8, 2017).

The statute of limitations on plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims Act had expired, and equitable tolling doesn’t work here. Zappone v. United States, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17255 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2017).*

Defendant consented to seizure of his laptop before it was searched with a search warrant. Price v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144689 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2017).*

The Economist: What machines can tell from your face 
Life in the age of facial recognition