There are about 300 Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs and higher-ranking officials whose personnel files include evidence that they lied, took bribes, used excessive force or committed some other type of misconduct that is sufficiently serious to undermine their credibility as prosecution witnesses in criminal cases. Prosecutors have a constitutional duty to share that kind of evidence about their witnesses with defendants, but they can’t do it if they don’t know about it, and the California Supreme Court has blocked them from poring through law enforcement files themselves to find out who those deputies might be.
Posted inPolice misconduct|Comments Off on LA Times: If sheriff’s deputies are involved in misconduct, prosecutors have to know
Defendant was first stopped because housekeeping at the hotel he was staying in saw dope in the room and management locked him out and called the police. He was stopped on foot and it was discovered there was a warrant for him. The impoundment and inventory of defendant’s car was reasonable because he was in custody and the actual owner was unknown. Also, it wasn’t shown to be pretextual. The police waited until his time in the room expired the next day and they entered and seized his stuff. The entry into the room was reasonable because he was no longer a guest. State v. McDowell, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 196 (March 21, 2017).
Defendant failed to demonstrate that defense counsel’s failure to pursue a suppression motion of his computer was either ineffective or prejudicial. There was clearly probable cause to seize the computer for internet fraud, and a search warrant for the computer would have issued as a matter of course. Almahdi v. AG of N.Y., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41527 (S.D. N.Y. March 22, 2017).*
Posted inAbandonment, Reasonable expectation of privacy|Comments Off on MO: Police could arrest def at motel and wait until next day to get into his room for nonpayment of rent
The Intercept: Real-Time Face Recognition Threatens to Turn Cops’ Body Cameras into Surveillance Machines by Ava Kofman:
“These cameras are small, hard to notice, and all over the place. That’s a pretty lethal combination for privacy unless we have reasonable rules on how they can be used together.”
LAST YEAR, A RUSSIAN startup announced that it could scan the faces of people passing by Moscow’s thousands of CCTV cameras and pick out wanted criminals or missing persons. Unlike much face recognition technology — which runs stills from videos or photographs after the fact — NTechLab’s FindFace algorithm has achieved a feat that once only seemed possible in the science fictional universe of “Minority Report”: It can determine not just who someone is, but where they’ve been, where they’re going, and whether they have an outstanding warrant, immigration detainer, or unpaid traffic ticket.
Posted inBody cameras|Comments Off on The Intercept: Real-Time Face Recognition Threatens to Turn Cops’ Body Cameras into Surveillance Machines
Google says it will fight a search warrant seeking information about anyone who searched the name of a financial crime victim on the search engine in December and early January.
Judge Gary Larson of Hennepin County, Minnesota, issued the warrant in February, report the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Ars Technica and TonyWebster.com, which was first to publicize the warrant.
Posted inComputer and cloud searches|Comments Off on ABAJ: Google vows to fight search warrant seeking the names of everyone who Googled crime victim
The government can use the All Writs Act to get the target of a search to decrypt a hard drive because it does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Challenging the merits of the underlying order in a civil contempt isn’t the way to review it. Even using plain error review, the contempt order stands. The district court didn’t believe the defendant when he said he couldn’t remember the password when he’d recently accessed the hard drive. United States v. Apple MacPro Computer (Doe), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4874 (3d Cir. March 20, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inComputer and cloud searches|Comments Off on CA3: 5A no bar to using All Writs Act and contempt power to order target to decrypt hard drive
Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule to a pre-Jardines dog sniff in a wide ranging and scholarly opinion surveying all the federal circuits on Davis and attenuation. McClintock v. State, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 291 (March 22, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inExclusionary rule, Good faith exception|Comments Off on Texas finally adopts the Davis good faith exception to its statutory exclusionary rule
Defendant was arrested for public intox and he became evasive including a request that his name not be run for warrants. That justified a Terry frisk. United States v. King, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40213 (D. Del. March 21, 2017).*
Defendant’s moving papers inconclusively suggest he has standing in a detached garage next to his house that blew up and caught on fire. Defendant’s injuries led to his leg being amputated below the knee. The court wants a hearing on standing and whether the warrantless entry into the burned garage was reasonable. United States v. O’Neill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40138 (W.D. N.Y. March 3, 2017).*
The alleged inaccuracy in the affidavit of probable cause didn’t undermine it. United States v. Musto, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40862 (M.D. Pa. March 22, 2017).*
A laptop of the medical provider was stolen, and plaintiff was told that his medical information may have been on it. He sued claiming a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This doesn’t state a claim. A stolen laptop is not a governmental search and seizure. Williams v. California Correctional Healthcare Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41556 (E.D. Cal. March 22, 2017).
The plaintiff “Program ‘is a privately funded program for troubled youths that provides a simple ranch life with the goal of helping troubled teenagers turn their lives around.’” After a motor vehicle accident, a resident died. The New Mexico State Police showed up and detained named plaintiffs for up to seven hours for questioning, allegedly without probable cause or a warrant. They stated a claim for relief under the Fourth Amendment. Tierra Blanca Ranch High Country Youth Program v. Gonzales, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40748 (D. N.M. March 20, 2017).*
Posted inSearch, Seizure|Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: A stolen laptop from a prison medical provider wasn’t a “search”
Being a drug dealer by trade doesn’t mean one’s house is subject to search. It is, however, an inference that can be drawn along with other facts. United States v. Couvertier, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40270 (M.D. Pa. March 21, 2017): Continue reading →
Posted inProbable cause|Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Being a drug dealer by trade doesn’t mean one’s house is subject to search; a bit more required
Defendant has sufficient interest in the business from which a thumb drive with data was taken and turned over to ICE officers at the U.S. Embassy in Panama. (The court acknowledges that it’s not “standing,” per se, but it continues to use the word.) On the question of private search, the court can’t find a Tenth Circuit case on it, but the Seventh and Ninth put it on defendant, so that’s what the court does. Then it finds that the defendant satisfied his burden of proof that the guy taking the thumb drive was a government actor because of government encouragement. [On the burden of proof, I disagree. See note at end.] United States v. King, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187174, 2015 WL 12852051 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 21, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inBurden of proof, Private search|Comments Off on W.D.Okla: Def bears burden of proving “private search” was by government actor and did; suppressed
WaPo: Who’s logging your face? by Alvaro Bedoya:
You probably remember the day you got your driver’s license. You went to the department of motor vehicles, took a driving test, stood for a photograph and then got your license. What if you — and most other teens in the United States — were then asked to submit your fingerprints for criminal investigations by the FBI or state police?
It sounds absurd, even Orwellian. Yet, one by one, over the past 15 years, 29 states have done something similar with our faces: They have allowed police or the FBI to use face-recognition technology to scan and search drivers’ faces for investigations — much like they would the fingerprints of criminals. In this way, most American adults can find themselves in a criminal face-recognition network.
Defense counsel’s handling of the suppression hearing and the questions asked was within the strategy choices of counsel. And, even if defendant had a real point here, he can’t show he was prejudiced by anything that wasn’t put into evidence. Sanders v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39297 (E.D. Tenn. March 20, 2017).
Defense counsel didn’t challenge the seizure of defendant’s cell phone from a co-conspirator’s house during a raid. He could have concluded it was covered by the warrant, but it really doesn’t matter since no contents of the phone were used at trial; therefore, no prejudice. Winters v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39556 (N.D. Miss. March 17, 2017).*
Posted inIneffective assistance|Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Defense counsel’s choice of questions during suppression hearing was a strategy choice
Defendant pro se opposed the taking of a new saliva sample. For some reason, the government applied for and obtained a new warrant for saliva having determined that the prior sample was too old or insufficient. The taking of the sample is not stayed. No authority or real argument is provided by the defense. United States v. Soto, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40436 (E.D. N.Y. March 21, 2017).*
The CI in this case was believable because he made significant admissions against interest in his own methamphetamine dealing. Then, the details were corroborated by independent police work. United States v. Mancilla-Ibarra, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38963 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37802 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2017).*
Posted inDNA, Informant hearsay|Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Def objection to new saliva sample by SW denied
Defendant’s motel room door was partly open, and the officer knocked on the door jamb and then pushed the door open. This was reasonable because there was both probable cause and exigent circumstances for opening the door. State v. Fletcher, 2017-Ohio-1006, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 988 (12th Dist. March 20, 2017).*
“Thus, based upon the totality of the circumstances, which include the late time of day, high crime area, the traffic violations, Cooper’s furtive movements [reaching toward his waistband when told to keep his hands still], the number of occupants in the car, the officers’ training and experience, a chaotic situation involving multiple people in the car (two of which were armed) and another car pulling up on the scene with the passengers yelling at the police, we find the officers’ actions were reasonable. The detectives were called upon to make quick decisions; we do not find that their actions in this case were unreasonable or infringed upon Cooper’s Fourth Amendment Rights.” State v. Cooper, 2017-Ohio-970, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 978 (8th Dist. March 9, 2017).*
Posted inReasonable suspicion, Reasonableness|Comments Off on OH11: Knocking on door jamb and pushing open partly open door was reasonable and with exigent circumstances
“Here, the warrants authorized officers to seize three categories of items: electronic devices, narcotics and related paraphernalia, and biological evidence. The affidavits established probable cause that Jackson’s electronic devices could contain evidence of sex trafficking—including photographs, documentary evidence, and advertisements—based on AV-1’s statement that Jackson forced her and other girls to engage in prostitution and took their photographs to post in on-line prostitution advertisements.” The search warrant was sufficiently particular. United States v. Jackson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39364 (E.D. Mich. March 20, 2017).*
Spinning tires and the sound of the tires was enough for a stop under a statute prohibiting an “exhibition of speed.” Movement not required. State v. Sharp, 2017 Kan. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2017).*
Posted inParticularity, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: “electronic devices, narcotics and related paraphernalia, and biological evidence” was sufficiently particular
Appellant was an Air Force OSI investigator investigated for fraud against the government for false travel vouchers. A search of a shared desk by a coworker produced some documentation, but the government was already on to him, and a civilian judge authorized a search warrant for his off base housing producing the real evidence of fraud. When he returned from his honeymoon, his backpack was searched under a military oral search authorization reduced to writing the next day. The shared desk likely had little privacy in it under O’Connor v. Ortega, but that’s not even pertinent because that didn’t enter into the search warrant application. United States v. Eppes, 2017 CCA LEXIS 152 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2017).*
Window tint so dark the officer couldn’t see into the car in the dark was reasonable suspicion for the stop without knowing specifically what the law was. State v. Moore, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 123 (March 16, 2017).*
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." —Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." —Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." —United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." —Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." —Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." —Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.” —United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
