Manuel v. City of Joliet, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2021 (U.S. March 21, 2017).
SCOTUSBlog: Opinion analysis: The Fourth Amendment governs unlawful pretrial detention claims even after legal process begins; everything else is remanded by Rory Little
Syllabus:
Continue reading
WaPo: The Watch Blog: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case with major implications for the Second and Fourth Amendments by Radley Balko:
Continue reading
The special needs doctrine justified warrantless random drug testing of juvenile detention officers. A documented problem of drug abuse is not required before they can be tested. The government satisfies its burden for random drug testing in this context balanced against individual privacy. Washington v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, 847 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2017).
A former state chief magistrate judge had his conviction affirmed for, inter alia, causing unreasonable searches and seizures of a staff member by having her arrested for drugs. He was also convicted of witness tampering and planting drugs. Only his conviction of personally searching her cell phone by looking through it is vacated. United States v. Cochran, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4751 (11th Cir. March 17, 2017).*
Heavy foot traffic between two homes is not indicative of criminal activity even where there is plenty of probable cause as to one. The other home is not guilty by association. State v. Harding, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 113 (March 13, 2017).
In this 2255, the IAC Franks claim is conclusory and fails. As to another issue, he doesn’t have standing. United States v. Clark, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38684 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2017).*
Defendant satisfies the Franks preliminary showing of false or misleading statements about alleged victims to get a Franks hearing. The nexus requirement of the affidavit is just barely met, and the hearing could undermine the probable cause showing. United States v. Kastis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38150 (E.D. Cal. March 16, 2017):
Continue reading
EFF: Border Agents Need A Warrant to Search Travelers’ Phones, EFF Tells Court (press release):
The Border Isn’t a Constitution-Free Zone
Richmond, Virginia—Border agents must obtain a warrant to search travelers’ phones, tablets, and laptops, which contain a vast trove of sensitive, highly personal information that is protected by the Fourth Amendment, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal appeals court today.
Searches of devices at the border have more than doubled since the inauguration of President Trump—from nearly 25,000 in all of 2016, to 5,000 in February alone. This increase, along with the increasing number of people who carry these devices when they travel, has heightened awareness of the need for stronger privacy rights while crossing the U.S. border.
During an immigration checkpoint on a state highway in Arizona, the smell of marijuana coming from the car allowed the stop to go longer under Rodriguez. “Ruiz-Hernandez has not pointed to any authority, in any context, where law enforcement is precluded from taking action on a collateral law enforcement goal when they learn of it during the original encounter. For example, a traffic officer is not required to ignore a strong odor of marijuana he notices as he is conducting the traffic violation stop.” United States v. Ruiz-Hernandez, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38759 (D.Ariz. March 16, 2017).
“Here, the allegations in Hall’s complaint, as amended, contradict the facts supporting his conviction for evading arrest and, therefore, if credited, would necessarily imply that his conviction is invalid.” The case is thus barred by Heck. Hall v. Abilene’s Task Force, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4611 (5th Cir. March 16, 2017).*
A citizen informant pointing out defendant as having a gun, right in front of him, is entitled to presumptive credibility because she exposed her knowledge to defendant and risked retaliation. United States v. Slone, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38515 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2017).
Continue reading
In a fractured panel decision, the Tenth Circuit holds that federal law governs qualified immunity, not state law. Here, defendant violated clearly established state law, but the district court didn’t decide whether it violated clearly established federal law. Remanded. Stanley v. Gallegos, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4816 (10th Cir. March 17, 2017):
Continue reading
Defendant abandoned bottle of cannabis by dropping it when the officer rolled down his window and said “come here.” The court spends many paragraphs agreeing with the trial court that defendant hadn’t been seized at that point because it was a mere request and not a command. The officer was in the car and displayed no weapons. People v. Qurash, 2017 IL App (1st) 143412, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 141 (March 16, 2017):
Continue reading
Even if the officer’s showing was insufficient to show probable cause, the officer could rely on defendant’s parole search waiver for the search because the information clearly provided at least reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ickes, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38207 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 21, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36938 (W.D. Ky. March 15, 2017):
Continue reading
A dog sniff at a storage unit didn’t violate any reasonable expectation of privacy. It isn’t the same as curtilage of the home. Defendant’s attempt to show a Franks discrepancy because he originally rented C43 but moved two weeks later to C69 is unavailing because there was no misleading here. United States v. Nasir, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36813 (D. Del. March 15, 2017).
WaPo: ‘The Watch’ Blog: South Carolina police shot a man to pieces over $100 worth of pot, then lied about it by Radley Balko:
Prosecutors drop drug charges against Julian Betton after cops’ account of the raid that paralyzed him is disproven.
Continue reading
The Libertarian Republic: Rand Paul Reintroduces “FAIR Act” to Restore Respect for the 5th Amendment [in forfeitures]
Kentucky conservative Senator Rand Paul reintroduced S. 642, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act on Wednesday. The intention of the bill is to protect property owners’ rights and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in civil forfeiture proceedings. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) has introduced companion legislation (H.R. 1555) in the U.S. House of Representatives, read an official statement from his office on Thursday….The ‘FAIR Act’ has the backing of some major organizations in politics, including Heritage Action, the American Civil Liberties Union, Institute for Justice, FreedomWorks, National Federation of Independent Business, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Drug Policy Alliance, Americans for Tax Reform, and Campaign for Liberty, according to Paul’s statement.
The government showed reasonable suspicion to believe that defendants’ ship was engaged in drug smuggling when it was seen again off the Colombian coast heading to the U.S. along a known smuggling route. The USCG elected to scuttle the boat because it wasn’t seaworthy and was taking on water. First, they measured, videoed, and photographed all of it. The explanation is reasonable, and it’s not spoliation of evidence. United States v. Ruiz-Murillo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37810 (S.D.Ala. March 15, 2017):
Continue reading
Defendant’s Instagram pages allowed agents to see photographs of firearms and bottles of promethazine with codeine (“molly”) and marijuana. Defendant was already a suspected molly distributor with two prior cocaine convictions, and that substantially helped show probable cause for a warrant for his house because it corroborated CIs. United States v. Garcia, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37904 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37905 (S.D. Fla. March 16, 2017), as revised 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47862 (S.D. Fla. March 29, 2017). [Note: It’s so obvious that cell phones have been the downfall of many, MANY defendants in all kinds of cases. Why do they insist on taking pictures of their cache and then, worse yet, post it publicly.]
The lack of an inventory sheet fatal to the state’s claim the search was valid as an inventory. Keith v. State, 2017 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 14 (March 17, 2017):
Continue reading
In a non-search case, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals dismisses an appeal for an overbroad “certified question” for appeal, citing from a 2001 search and seizure case where the issue was presented as “the validity of the search and seizure of the” appellant, which is fatally general. State v. Toone, 2017 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 199 (March 16, 2017):
Continue reading
Telling defendant to stop moving his hands around while he’s sitting in a car isn’t a “seizure.” When defendant complied, the officer who stopped him could see the corner of a baggie for drugs in plain view on the console, and that was at least reasonable suspicion. United States v. Gardenhire, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37657 (W.D. Pa. March 16, 2017).
Defendant’s communications with an undercover officer created reasonable inferences that he was collecting child pornography, and that was probable cause for a search of his house and computer. United States v. Carlisle, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35295 (N.D. Ill. March 13, 2017),* substituted opinion, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72507 (N.D. Ala. May 12, 2017).*
Defendant can’t raise a Fourth Amendment claim in his 2255. Besides, it was already raised earlier in the proceedings and denied. Evers v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35933 (W.D. Tenn. March 14, 2017).*
