CA9: PC for arrest in the 1A context: ptf street performer’s arrest was without probable cause

Plaintiff is a Las Vegas Strip street performer, and she was arrested for conducting business with another performer without a license. The district court erred by deciding that the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff despite the First Amendment protections afforded to her expressive association. The full First Amendment protections accorded plaintiff’s own activities did not lapse because of what the other performer said or did without plaintiff’s direct participation. Rather, plaintiff’s and the other performer’s expressive association could not be the sole basis relied upon to attribute the other performer’s actions to plaintiff. To infer from their shared costumes and joint performance alone that there was an agreement to engage in a regulable transaction impermissibly burdened the right to engage in purely expressive activity and association. Santopietro v. Howell, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9028 (9th Cir. May 24, 2017).

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA9: PC for arrest in the 1A context: ptf street performer’s arrest was without probable cause

CA4: Wikimedia can show standing to challenge internet surveillance under Clapper v. Amesty International

Wikimedia’s complaint against the NSA survives SCOTUS Clapper v. Amnesty International standing analysis. Wikimedia handles over one trillion internet communications a year, and every internet portal in the U.S. and likely the world reaches it. Therefore, some communications have to have been captured. The other complainants’ standing, however, are speculative under Clapper. Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA/Central Security Service, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8957 (4th Cir. May 23, 2017).

Motion to excluded 404(b) evidence after jury was selected was a thinly veiled motion to suppress that wasn’t remotely timely. United States v. Quinones-Davila, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77605 (D.V.I. May 22, 2017).*

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Standing | Comments Off on CA4: Wikimedia can show standing to challenge internet surveillance under Clapper v. Amesty International

NYLJ: Federal Jury Awards $8M to Man Injured by Police Stun Gun

NYLJ: Federal Jury Awards $8M to Man Injured by Police Stun Gun by Jason Grant:

A federal jury has awarded a mentally disabled Long Island man and his parents $8.32 million after police used a stun gun on the man four times inside his home in 2010.

Posted in Excessive force | Comments Off on NYLJ: Federal Jury Awards $8M to Man Injured by Police Stun Gun

WaPo: ‘The Volokh Conspiracy’ Blog: United States v. Wallace is a GPS case, not a cell-site case – here’s why it matters

WaPo: ‘The Volokh Conspiracy’ Blog: United States v. Wallace is a GPS case, not a cell-site case — here’s why it matters by Orin Kerr:

Yesterday I wrote at length on United States v. Wallace, a new decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that obtaining E911 location information from a cellphone is not a search. In this post, I will argue that the 5th Circuit’s reasoning can’t work because it rests on a misunderstanding of the record.

Posted in Cell site location information, GPS / Tracking Data | Comments Off on WaPo: ‘The Volokh Conspiracy’ Blog: United States v. Wallace is a GPS case, not a cell-site case – here’s why it matters

Law.com: Fourth Amendment Exception Allows Customs to Search Personal Devices

Law.com: Fourth Amendment Exception Allows Customs to Search Personal Devices by Joe Martini & James Glasser:

CBP agents can search cellphones, laptops and other electronic devices of those entering or leaving the country, regardless of citizenship and despite the vast quantities of extremely personal information stored on those devices. And CBP agents are searching more devices now than ever.

Posted in Border search | Comments Off on Law.com: Fourth Amendment Exception Allows Customs to Search Personal Devices

FL1: No REP in bloody clothes of shooting victim who came to ER: they were in plain view

Defendant was shot, and he showed up at an emergency room claiming he was the victim of a robbery. His bloody clothes were removed from him and bagged and on the floor. A police officer noticed the clothes and considered them evidence of his robbery, so he took them. The seizure of the bloody clothes was reasonable because they were in plain view and there was probable cause. Defendant was convicted of murder. Purifoy v. State, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7626 (Fla. 1st DCA May 25, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on FL1: No REP in bloody clothes of shooting victim who came to ER: they were in plain view

TN: Def’s disclaimer of interest in apartment he was in denied him standing

The trial court credited the officer’s testimony that defendant said that he could not consent to a search of the apartment he was in because it wasn’t his residence. That meant he lacked standing. The police came there expecting it to be his: “The fact that Detective Pitts initially chose to conduct a knock and talk at the Village Park residence because that address was associated with Defendant’s name on the report of pseudoephedrine purchases does not negate Defendant’s subsequent disclaimer of his interest in the property.” State v. Sutton, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 421 (May 19, 2017).

Posted in Standing | Comments Off on TN: Def’s disclaimer of interest in apartment he was in denied him standing

WV: Def’s brother was the CI for a DUI stop

Defendant’s brother was the citizen informant who reported he was driving under the influence, and he was giving the police information by phone about where he was. The stop was with reasonable suspicion. State v. Wood, 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 387 (May 22, 2017).*

The question of consent wasn’t fully resolved below, and the case is remanded for that. State v. Parkman, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 489 (May 23, 2017).*

Posted in Informant hearsay | Comments Off on WV: Def’s brother was the CI for a DUI stop

MO: Systemic negligence in officer’s preparation of SW affidavits showed GFE couldn’t be relied upon

On remand from State v. Robinson, 454 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. App. 2015), the only evidence in the record showed that the officer who prepared the affidavit was systemically negligent in the preparation of search warrant affidavits, and that precludes application of the good faith exception. State v. Robinson, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 483 (May 23, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception | Comments Off on MO: Systemic negligence in officer’s preparation of SW affidavits showed GFE couldn’t be relied upon

SD: SI can occur after a valid citizen’s arrest

Defendant was stopped and subjected to a citizen’s arrest by Walmart security. Her purse was searched based on the arrest, and it was valid. “Thus, a search need not be incident to an arrest by law enforcement because a citizen is empowered to make the same arrest.” State v. Lee, 2017 SD 28, 2017 S.D. LEXIS 60 (May 17, 2017).

Defendant’s slow speech, bloodshot eyes, and admission of possession of marijuana was enough to search his car after his traffic stop. State v. Dewitt, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 239 (May 18, 2017).*

Posted in Search incident | Comments Off on SD: SI can occur after a valid citizen’s arrest

E.D.La.: Louisiana’s broad standing rule doesn’t apply in federal prosecutions

Defendant lacked standing in his codefendant’s cell phone and motel room. Louisiana’s broad state standing law doesn’t apply in federal prosecutions. United States v. Daniels, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76266 (E.D. La. May 5, 2017).

Officers had justification for a stop based on a traffic violation, and marijuana could be smelled. When defendant got out of his car, a baggie dropped to the ground. All this was probable cause for a search of the car. United States v. Paul, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76473 (M.D. La. May 19, 2017).*

Posted in Conflict of laws, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.La.: Louisiana’s broad standing rule doesn’t apply in federal prosecutions

CA11: Consent to search in writing and giving password was consent to search cell phone

Turning over the cell phone, consenting to a search in writing, and giving the password all showed that the consent was voluntary. United States v. Grant, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8814 (11th Cir. May 19, 2017).*

There was reasonable suspicion to extend the detention because of defendant’s excessive nervousness and being on an 850 mile trip without clothes. Consent was granted before the computer check was complete. United States v. Antuna, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77931 (S.D. Tex. May 23, 2017).*

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA11: Consent to search in writing and giving password was consent to search cell phone

CA5: Prospective CSLI is a records request, and it is not subject to the Fourth Amendment

A court order for prospective cell site location information is a records request, and it is not subject to the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Wallace, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8914 (5th Cir. May 22, 2017), substituted opinion 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14311 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information | Comments Off on CA5: Prospective CSLI is a records request, and it is not subject to the Fourth Amendment

CA7: “I guess so. You’re just doing your job” to a request to search is consent

Defendant was in a small roomette on an Amtrak train. When it stopped in Galesburg IL, two police officers went through the train to look at papers, IDs, and ask about hauling cash or drugs. She denied having anything, but consented to a search by saying “I guess so. You’re just doing your job.” That was consent. It was more than mere acquiescence to a claim of authority. United States v. Radford, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8865 (7th Cir. May 22, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Consent | Comments Off on CA7: “I guess so. You’re just doing your job” to a request to search is consent

D.N.M.: “An attorney’s choice in advancing one theory over another at a suppression hearing is often a strategic decision.”

“An attorney’s choice in advancing one theory over another at a suppression hearing is often a strategic decision.” United States v. Gutierrez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188570 (D.N.M. January 27, 2015).

Defendant couldn’t claim ineffective assistance from a 2004 traffic stop where he didn’t show standing and it never formed a part of the evidence in the case against him. How can he be prejudiced if it wasn’t used? Hernandez v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76969 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2017).*

Defendant’s plea agreement waived his search issue. Almanza-Rodriguez v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188547 (W.D. Tex. March 30, 2015).*

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on D.N.M.: “An attorney’s choice in advancing one theory over another at a suppression hearing is often a strategic decision.”

D.P.R.: Lack of attenuation from illegal search leads to exclusion

The lack of attenuation and exploitation of the illegality of an illegal search here favors exclusion. United States v. Cordero-Rosario, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76904 (D.P.R. May 18, 2017):
Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Lack of attenuation from illegal search leads to exclusion

WV: Defendant’s recorded consent shows it was valid

Defendant’s recorded consent shows it was valid. “he does not contest the voluntariness of the search and appears to take issue only with the extent of his voluntary consent. Petitioner’s consent to the search was recorded by law enforcement, and it reveals that petitioner specifically stated ‘it don’t [sic] matter where you check at in the house, you know ….’” State v. Juan M., 2017 W. Va. LEXIS 352 (May 19, 2017) (memorandum).

The smell of burning marijuana coming from defendant’s car was probable cause to search the car. State v. Richmond, 2017-Ohio-2860, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1888 (8th Cir. May 18, 2017).*

Posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on WV: Defendant’s recorded consent shows it was valid

OH2: Nothing about def or her driving suggested she was under the influence; PBT suppressed

There was no reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop: defendant had not admitted to drinking on the evening of the stop, that her traffic violation had been de minimis, that her speech was not impaired, that neither defendant’s movement when she exited the car nor her demeanor indicated any impairment, that there had been no complaints from third parties about her driving, and that it was not particularly late at the time of the traffic stop. State v. Nelson, 2017-Ohio-2884, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1937 (2d Dist. May 19, 2017).

Defendant’s voluntary plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. United States v. Smith, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76267 (E.D. La. May 19, 2017).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH2: Nothing about def or her driving suggested she was under the influence; PBT suppressed

The last of the files left in the hacks are gone

Our server service took us down for 48 hours to cleanup files left during the hacks. Regretfully, there were phishing attacks coming from here because of implanted files. You remove what they point out, and then others appear, triggered maybe by the date.

They’re presumably gone. Phishing files produce reports emailed to me and forwarded to them. It was their decision, and a good one if it’s done.

Now to get caught up. I apologize for being down for two days. I really hate that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The last of the files left in the hacks are gone

CA1: Misstatement Alpha-PVP was in package instead of Alpha-PHP was not material nor in bad faith

The affidavit for search warrant was based on a customs search of a package destined for delivery in Maine that the contents was Alpha-PVP, which is how it looked and field tested as MDMA. Later lab analysis showed it was Alpha-PHP. Both are controlled substances. While the statement was false, it was not recklessly false or in bad faith. Despite all that, there was probable cause on the totality anyway. United States v. Coombs, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8832 (1st Cir. May 19, 2017).

“[W]e conclude that Saafir is distinguishable from the subject case because the police officer here did not falsely assert authority to search the vehicle Johnson was driving.” The officer had probable cause from his observations of defendant in the car, and that supported a search under the automobile exception. United States v. Johnson, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8721 (4th Cir. May 18, 2017).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA1: Misstatement Alpha-PVP was in package instead of Alpha-PHP was not material nor in bad faith