Since the facts are undisputed, the court does de novo review and finds that defendant consented to the breath test and reverses. State v. Jacobs, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 361 (Aug. 2, 2017).
“Counsel was not ineffective in failing to move to suppress the evidence referenced in Levy’s motion because any suppression motion would have been meritless.” United States v. Levy, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118083 (S.D. N.Y. July 25, 2017).*
Police showed probable cause for a DNA search warrant in an effort to connect defendant to an armed robbery. The warrant had a nighttime search clause. Since this all happened during daylight hours, any issues with the nighttime clause are moot. United States v. Mendoza, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119718 (D. Nev. May 10, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119399 (D. Nev. July 28, 2017).
“The very Fourth Amendment issues now raised by Berger in this § 2255 proceeding were raised and decided adversely to him on direct appeal. … He may not do so again now.” United States v. Berger, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120709 (W.D. Ark. June 12, 2017). Accord: Harvey v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189561 (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2015) (heavily litigated in district court).
The stop was based on reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation, and then the officer encountered the overwhelming smell of marijuana. That was probable cause. United States v. Zamora, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117896 (D. Nev. June 16, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116846 (D. Nev. July 26, 2017).*
Plaintiff’s civil search claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, but his due process claim was not. Shugart v. Six Unknown Fannin Cty. Sheriffs, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14190 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017):
Continue reading
ACLU: A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That. by Brett Max Kaufman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Center for Democracy:
Continue reading
SCOTUSBlog: Symposium: Carpenter and the eyewitness rule by Orin Kerr:
Continue reading
Plaintiffs were involved in a domestic dispute outside their trailer that had started to cool down, or so they said. One wanted to go into the house to retrieve shoes, but the officer insisted on following to be sure there were no weapons. There was resistance to the police entry that resulted in one plaintiff being injured and suing. The case was dismissed on qualified immunity for lack of clearly established law that even minimal force can be used to resist an alleged unlawful search. Starrett v. City of Lander, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13935 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017):
Continue reading
LATimes: Privacy trumps the expedience of police technology tools (editorial):
Continue reading
Officers had reasonable suspicion when they confronted defendant on the parking lot of a club where there had been many crimes in the past. His delay for 15 seconds in raising his hands justified drawing their weapons. United States v. Daughtridge, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116015 (E.D. N.C. May 3, 2017), adopted, United States v. Daughtridge, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115450 (E.D.N.C. July 25, 2017).
When there are two taillights on one side of the car, one bulb being out can support a stop for defective equipment under state law. State v. Farish, 2017 N.M. App. LEXIS 61 (July 31, 2017) [Heien all over again.]
“At issue in this case is whether a court may require a probationer convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) to submit to random urinalysis testing (UAs) for controlled substances. In particular, this issue centers on whether this testing violates DUI probationers’ privacy interests under article I, section 7 of our state constitution. Random UAs do implicate a probationer’s reduced privacy interests. But here, where urinalysis was authorized to monitor compliance with a valid probation condition requiring Olsen to refrain from drug and alcohol consumption, the testing does not violate article I, section 7. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals.” State v. Olsen, 2017 Wash. LEXIS 828 (Aug. 3, 2017).
Officers were attracted to a group of youths in an area known for potential gang violence. They approached them and informed defendant that he smelled of marijuana and searched him. Because smelling of marijuana isn’t a crime and possession of less than an ounce is an infraction, there was no offense for a search incident. In re D.W., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 670 (1st Dist. July 6, 2017), published Aug. 2, 2017).
AP (Police One): Lawsuit: Neb. patrol accused of requiring vaginal exams for female recruits by Margery A. Beck:
State Patrol spokesman Cody Thomas said no NSP recruits have undergone the pelvic exams since December 2016
Continue reading
Reason: Federal Judge Rules Unlicensed Dogs Aren’t Protected By Fourth Amendment by C.J. Ciaramella:
Nikita Smith sued the Detroit police after they shot her three dogs on a pot raid. A judge ruled the dogs were “contraband.”
Continue reading
The juvenile in this case was in a Kroger parking lot late one Sunday morning asking to use cell phones. The police were called, and he was found with two backpacks and the police suspected he was a runaway. A patdown was not shown by the state to be objectively for officer safety. K.G. v. State, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 317 (July 31, 2017).
There was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant here independent of the protective sweep defendant alleges was unreasonable. Brown v. Commonwealth, 2017 Va. App. LEXIS 184 (Aug. 1, 2017).*
“Here, the Court finds that Officer Kunz had reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendant was armed and presently dangerous, such that his patdown of Defendant was lawful. The stop occurred at night, when it was dark outside. After the vehicle was stopped, Officer Kunz approached the passenger side and attempted to speak with Defendant. Defendant refused to even look at him, instead staring straight forward and refusing to acknowledge the officer’s questions. Additionally, Defendant appeared nervous, as his hands were shaking. When Officer Kunz asked Defendant to walk toward his vehicle, he specifically told Defendant to keep his hands visible and not reach for his pockets. Despite those clear instructions, Defendant reached for his front pockets on three separate occasions for an object that was not visible, causing Officer Kunz to fear for officer safety.” United States v. Vargas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116019 (D. Nev. March 3, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115139 (D. Nev. July 24, 2017).
Defendant was de facto arrested when he was taken in handcuffs from the place of his seizure to a police station and placed in a holding cell for interrogation. United States v. Wrensford, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13894 (3d Cir. July 31, 2017).
“Based on a review of the record, the trial court could reasonably determine that Officer Rodriguez diligently pursued a means to confirm or dispel his suspicions and the detention was not so long as to become constitutionally prohibited,” and that defendant consented to a search of his wallet for an ID card that proved to be false. Alfaro-Jimenez v. State, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7225 (Tex. App. – San Antonio Aug. 2, 2017).*
A nine hour old report of a man claiming suicidal ideations was no longer an emergency when the police got it. It was also vague and uncorroborated. “Every emergency ends at some point.” And this one did before the entry. State v. Hyde, 2017 ND 186, 2017 N.D. LEXIS 195 (July 31, 2017):
Continue reading
SCOTUSBlog: Symposium: Justices poised to consider, or reconsider, Fourth Amendment doctrines as they assess the scope of privacy in a digital age by John Castellano, Asst. District Attorney of Queens County, New York
SCOTUSBlog: Symposium: Will the Fourth Amendment protect 21st-century data? The court confronts the third-party doctrine by Jennifer Lynch, EFF
SMU Law Review: Reaching Across the Threshold of the Fourth Amendment — Why Payton v. New York Should be Interpreted Broadly by Caroline Hunt, 70 SMU L. Rev. 189 (2017)
