In a search of a medical clinic with a search warrant, officers entered and fanned out through the premises with one officer presenting the search warrant to the receptionist. The knock-and-announce statute applies to any possible use of force, including opening doors, and that question wasn’t answered by the trial court. Exigency also would be an exception, and that, too, was not decided. Therefore, remand to settle these questions is required. Hourin v. State, 2017 Ga. LEXIS 711 (Aug. 28, 2017).

There was probable cause to search defendant’s home for evidence of child sexual exploitation based on the statement of the victim and her mother. Defendant’ overbreadth argument in the district court fails for not citing authority that it was overbroad; it is tantamount to waiver. (Treatise § 60.31) A fifteen day delay in searching defendant’s truck for evidence of the crime also wasn’t unreasonable. “The extent of the intrusion on Wilkinson’s possessory interest in the truck was minimal given the totality of the circumstances. The government had a legitimate interest in seizing and retaining the truck based on the likelihood that it was evidence of Wilkinson’s suspected crimes. The government’s course of conduct was reasonable.” United States v. Wilkinson, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16300 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2017).

Ars Technica: Man in jail 2 years for refusing to decrypt drives. Will he ever get out? by David Kravets:
Continue reading →

Plaintiff awoke to hear a commotion in his front yard, and he saw officers with guns drawn on his handicapped wife. He stood in his doorway and questioned what they were doing and why, and he video recorded them. They ordered him inside, and, when he refused, he was arrested for obstruction. Their claim he was armed and could ambush them was without probable cause to believe any offense occurred, and they are denied qualified immunity for the arrest. They are also denied qualified immunity for the First Amendment claim of recording the police doing their jobs and that part of the arrest as well. Hoyland v. McMenomy, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16366 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2017) (2-1 with Colloton dissenting, which is no surprise).

In a homicide case with plenty of other proof of motive, defendants’ cell phones were illegally searched, and then the decision was made by the police to get a warrant. The search was unreasonable. “It was only after the confirmatory search was performed, and the results of that search were shared with General Jones, that the decision to get a search warrant was made. The evidence at the suppression hearing established that the “decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what [Agent Utterback] had seen during the initial” illegal searches of the cell phones. See Murray, 487 U.S. at 542. As such, the independent source doctrine does not prevent the exclusion of the evidence recovered from the Defendants’ cell phones. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the Defendants’ motions to suppress on this basis.” Moreover, the 2016 adoption of the good faith exception in Tennessee does not apply to this search because the officers could not articulate why they thought they could search a cell phone without a warrant. On this record, however, the content of the cell phone was harmless error to the strength of the state’s case. State v. Patel, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 767 (Aug. 25, 2017).*