Library of Law and Liberty: The Legislative History of the Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and General Warrants by Mike Rappaport:
Continue reading →

Just because the state court is alleged to be wrong and applied the wrong standard, that doesn’t make the defendant was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court under Stone v. Powell. Sheffield v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23861 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016) (order):
Continue reading →

Prop 47 that retroactively reduced some felonies to misdemeanors does not mean that DNA reasonably collected back when it was a felony was unreasonably seized at the time and didn’t retroactively become unreasonable. People v. Harris, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 770 (4th Dist. Sept. 6, 2017):
Continue reading →

The stop made for a traffic offense lawfully led to the seizure of defendant’s vehicle registration. State v. Corbin, 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 651 (Sept. 5, 2017)* (memorandum).

The parties base the motion to suppress solely on the police reports, and it’s denied. “But Cuevas’s focus on duration-of-the-stop cases is misguided. Cuevas has not challenged the duration of the stop prior to Trooper Russell seeking consent and, in any event, that period was reasonable. Trooper Russell’s discussion with Cuevas, up to this point, was not unduly prolonged and Trooper Russell requested permission to search the car before he had even checked Cuevas’s license and registration, clearly a task essential to the issuance of a warning or ticket.” United States v. Cuevas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131411 (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2017).*

Police withholding exculpatory information found in a search warrant from the DA that fully undermines the probable cause for a charge states a malicious prosecution claim. A grand jury indictment based on the faulty information doesn’t immunize the officer. Braswell v. Medina, 2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 748 (Sept. 5, 2017):
Continue reading →

Lawfare: iOS 11 May Complicate Border Searches by Nicholas Weaver:

The upcoming iOS 11 makes further changes in order to protect users’ phones, tablets, and iPods from unauthorized access. Phones, however, cannot reliably distinguish between law enforcement, thieves, and hostile intelligence services; it treats anyone but the user and unauthorized. This means the upgrades will have some impact on lawful investigations.

lawfare: Reengineering Surveillance Oversight by Siobhan Gorman:

This piece is part of a series on Tim Edgar’s new book, “Beyond Snowden.” 

One of the most important revelations following the disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was the inadequate oversight of highly invasive U.S. surveillance programs.

techdirt: Canadian Cops Belatedly Asking For Authorization To Deploy Stingray Devices They’ve Been Using For Years by Tim
Cushing:

Better late than never is the motto of Canadian law enforcement Stingray Squads. Documents obtained by Vice Canada show police scrambling to obtain warrants for equipment they were already deploying.

Probation officers lacked reasonable suspicion for a search of defendant’s residence, and none of the five proffered reasons was sufficient. Strongest might have been that defendant was alleged to have used anabolic steroids, but there was no probation condition against their use and the hearsay information about it was tenuous at best and completely uncorroborated and stale. United States v. Manansingh, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141189 (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2017).

An arrest warrant grants officers “limited authority” to enter to arrest, and a plain view and a protective sweep may reasonably result. United States v. Hamilton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142997 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2017).*

The trial court erred in striking defendant’s motion to suppress for generality because it fairly apprised the state and the court what the issues were. State v. Oxford, 287 Ore. App. 580, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1019 (Aug. 30, 2017):
Continue reading →

Defendant was arrested for a probation violation, and an inventory of his wallet included opening a folded piece of paper. Opening it was unreasonable because nothing suggested there was contraband inside [but there was]. State v. Garcia-Cruz, 287 Ore. App. 516, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1025 (Aug. 30, 2017).

Defendant mentions that a police dog was present at the scene, but it was not a drug dog, and it did no sniff like in Jardines. This was a matter of consent, and the dog had nothing to do with the consent being granted. United States v. Kendricks, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142938 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2017).*

After test driving a van, defendant shot the owner of the van and stole it. He can’t then have a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and, therefore, no standing. United States v. North, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141947 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141688 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 1, 2017):
Continue reading →

Defendant’s jumping out of the car when it was stopped for a traffic offense and saying that there was a warrant on him was reasonable suspicion to detain him longer. Rainey v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 427 (Sept. 6, 2017).*

The affidavit for the search warrant here was nearly identical to another in the case, and it was issued on probable cause. Even if not, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Nguyen, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142168 (D. Minn. Aug. 9, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140789 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2017).*

Defendant stated a sufficient basis for ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress the entry into the curtilage of his house from which officers could smell marijuana. Remanded for a hearing. Guevara v. State, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12631 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 1, 2017).

Defendant was a cancer patient, and he parked in a strip mall parking lot with his pain meds. The officer believed he saw and hand to hand transaction, and he approached defendant to talk about it. Defendant said he was grabbed, but the officer said he wasn’t and the trial court credited the officer’s testimony. Then the officer saw the other person in the transaction pop a pill, and that was then at least reasonable suspicion. State v. Ashford, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 801 (Sept. 1, 2017).*

ctovision: FBI vs Apple: Lessons From History and The Law on Protecting Privacy Rights by Arnold Abraham:
Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a five-part series on this topic. This examination by Arnold Abraham provides insights and nuanced lessons from history, the law and the tech world that can inform all of us interested in both privacy and security. For a detailed legal analysis accompanying the article, please visit Thecyberlawteam.com/publications-1/  
Continue reading →

“The affidavit in support of the search warrant provided a substantial basis for the warrant-issuing judge to find probable cause to search Appellant’s cell phone where the warrant affidavit stated that Appellant was arrested and found with an assault victim’s wallet and shoes, Appellant had confessed to assault, and the affiant knew through his experience that suspects in robberies and assaults sometimes take pictures and send communications related to criminal activity on their cell phones.” Even so, the good faith exception would apply. (Summary by the court.) Moats v. State, 2017 Md. LEXIS 610 (Aug. 31, 2017); Stevenson v. State, 2017 Md. LEXIS 611 (Aug. 31, 2017).

Counsel’s affidavit on information and belief that the defendant had standing and why wasn’t objected to by the government, but it should have been. After chiding counsel, the court proceeds to assume standing. “Investigator Bernabei’s [31 page] affidavit described a series of intercepted calls supported by police and live-video surveillance, which together portrayed a criminal network involving multiple individuals engaged in drug trafficking.” There was ample probable cause. United States v. Montgomery, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142149 (W.D. N.Y. July 21, 2017).*

The trial court did not err in striking defendant’s motion to suppress for failing to cite authority. “Furthermore, as noted, defendant’s motion was not accompanied by a brief or supporting memorandum providing such authority. Thus, defendant’s motion did not satisfy the requirement that any motion to suppress ‘must cite any constitutional provision, statute, rule, case, or other authority upon which it is based.’” Citing a case that says the burden is on the state in a warrantless search doesn’t comply. State v. Jacinto-Leiva, 287 Ore. App. 574, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1015 (Aug. 30, 2017).

There was no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that defendant was armed to justify a frisk for officer safety. State v. Gaylor, 287 Ore. App. 495, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 1017 (Aug. 30, 2017).*

A dog sniff at an apartment door violates both the Fourth Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution, considering it under the “privacy rights” analysis of Jardines’s concurrence (also accepted by CA7). Whether it is a house or an apartment, it’s still the home entitled to all the protections of the home. State v. Edstrom, 2017 Minn. App. LEXIS 107 (Sept. 5, 2017):
Continue reading →

NLJ: DreamHost Appeals Warrant Seeking Data on Trump Inauguration Protests by Michael Booth:
Continue reading →

Defendant left his cell phone behind at the scene of an attempted murder. Police removed the SIM card solely to find the name of the owner, then they obtained a search warrant for the SIM card. The limited use of the SIM card just to find the owner was reasonable on the theory that the subscriber information isn’t really private anyway. Moreover, inevitable discovery applies because the victim’s phone had five recent calls to the defendant’s cell phone. State v. Moore, 2017 S.C. App. LEXIS 73 (Aug. 30, 2017). The state did not argue abandonment, and the same court held abandonment applied to a similar situation two years earlier in State v. Brown, 414 S.C. 14, 776 S.E.2d 917 (App. 2015). This case will be in the next supplement at new § 42.24[5].