USA Today: Column: Predictive policing violates more than it protects by William Isaac & Kristian Lum:
System meant to alleviate police resources disproportionately targets minority communities, raises Fourth Amendment concerns.
USA Today: Column: Predictive policing violates more than it protects by William Isaac & Kristian Lum:
System meant to alleviate police resources disproportionately targets minority communities, raises Fourth Amendment concerns.
WaPo: Companies may be willing to pay for data from Fitbits, other wearable sensors by Des Bieler:
Naturally, privacy concerns abound here, and Olshansky emphasized that he was ‘acutely sensitive to those issues.’ He added: ‘We think that personal health data should be owned by the individual, not by any Big Brother. You should decide yourself whether or not you want to release that information to anyone.’
Restating the Tenth Circuit’s rule permitting blanket suppression for serious overseizure contrary to the warrant, the court finds that this one doesn’t measure up. The inventory went on for 50 pages, but defendant only challenged three items of artwork that disappeared. United States v. Wyatt, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166731 (D.Colo. Nov. 29, 2016):
Continue reading
On this record with a wealth of reasonable suspicion and then probable cause, a strip search incident to arrest was justified at the police station in the breathalyser room. Defendant stripped and bent over but refused to spread his cheeks. Still, the officer could see a baggie peeking out of defendant’s anus and removed it. Williams v. State, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 1464 (Dec. 2, 2016):
Continue reading
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, but the officers had been briefed on defendant by the DEA. (The pre-Jones GPS monitoring of defendant’s car for 73 days is valid under Davis.) He wouldn’t make eye contact, his hands were shaking, and his story didn’t make sense both as to where he was going but also as to what he was doing because it was directly contrary to what the DEA had already told the officer. A dog alert after that led to a search of the car for 45 minutes which didn’t find anything. Based on all they knew, that did not dissipate the probable cause. United States v. Berry, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21500 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016):
Continue reading
Officers in the U.S. received information from Queensland, Australia that an Australian using a hotmail account had been emailing child pornography. One of those was in this district. By the time the search warrant was sought nine months later, the hotmail account had been closed. “Age of the information supporting a warrant application is a factor in determining probable cause. If too old, the information is stale, and probable cause may no longer exist. Age alone, however, does not determine staleness. … Rather, we must also examine the nature of the crime and the type of evidence.” In this circuit, search warrants far older than that have been sustained. United States v. Coca, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165594 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 1, 2016). [Anybody aware of a CP staleness challenge ever working?]
There was reasonable suspicion on the totality. Defendant specifically challenged whether the officer could have seen the stock of a shotgun. Granting that possibility, there was still reasonable suspicion without that. United States v. Perez-Boscana, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165557 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 30, 2016).*
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the search of defendant’s bedroom did not fall within the emergency aid exception to warrant requirement in the state constitution. First, defendant was sitting outside the house when officers arrived and was agitated and clearly able to articulate her emotions. While a second emergency occurred when defendant locked herself in her bedroom after expressing suicidal thoughts, that emergency dissipated when the officer gained access to the room and found defendant on the phone, without any pills or water nearby. Further search of the room was unreasonable. State v. Potter, 282 Ore. App. 605 (Nov. 30, 2016).
Any motion to suppress before trial would have been futile and denied. There was a positive dog alert, and that gave officers justification for searching the car. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. United States v. Begley, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165054 (E.D.Ky. Oct. 28, 2016).*
NBC News: Police Body Cams Spark Concerns About Privacy, Mass Surveillance by Catherine Chapman:
Body-worn cameras are increasingly being adopted by law enforcement across the country, offering a potential antidote to police brutality but also raising fears about mass surveillance and questions about how the footage is used.
There is no deference to the trial court’s findings of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. They are ultimate questions which can be appealed. Here, the officers had reasonable suspicion to continue defendant’s detention for a dog sniff. State v. Lugo, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 753 (Nov. 30, 2016).
The state sought defendant’s medical records without a search warrant, and he moved to suppress. The state then got a search warrant and argued the motion was moot, which the trial court accepted. Not so. The state can’t undo the illegality by just issuing a search warrant after it’s already got the records. At least nothing in the record supports the trial court’s finding because the state never put the warrant in as evidence at the hearing. State v. Merriweather, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4866 (1st Dist. Dec. 2, 2016)* (“this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court”).
Nexus was shown for the search of defendant’s house by the prior drug transactions that occurred inside the house. This was a seven year long conspiracy. United States v. Woodard, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21382 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2016).
Summary judgment against the plaintiff is affirmed. First, he didn’t show that he had any interest in the car that was impounded. Second, the impoundment apparently was proper under the Fourth Amendment. Rice v. El Cerrito Police Dep’t, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21422 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2016).*
Officers approached a group of men on the street in a high crime area telling them to stay put and not run. Defendant, however, sprinted away. Two officers were on bikes and caught up to him, and he admitted he had a gun on him when caught. The trial court’s findings of fact all favored the state right up to the conclusion that suppressed the frisk finding the gun. The suppression order is reversed. Terry is predicated on reasonable suspicion, not proof of a crime, and here there was reasonable suspicion by the character of the area and defendant’s unprovoked flight, which makes this a “replay” of Wardlow. State v. Sizer, 2016 Md. App. LEXIS 1394 (Nov. 29, 2016). This is by Justice Moylan for those who relish his writing:
Continue reading
Defendant’s stop for speeding was justified. “Officer Petterson testified that he decided to impound the Acura because the Acura was not registered to Reilly; the owner was not present; both occupants of the vehicle were being taken into custody; the Acura would have had its license plates removed; and the Acura was parked at the base of a ramp on a major highway in a high traffic area.” The officer failing to cite the specific provision of the inventory policy in his testimony wasn’t required to make it lawful. United States v. Reilly, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163779 (D.Minn. Nov. 4, 2016).
Ordering defendant out of his apartment at gunpoint and handcuffing him was an arrest and it was with probable cause because he matched the description of a man involved in a shooting and an empty shell casing was found outside his apartment door where the shooting allegedly took place. United States v. Brooks, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165041 (D.Nev. Nov. 17, 2016).*
Defendant’s arrest for drugs in his car as a suspected drug dealer was probable cause for a search warrant for his cell phones found in the car. It was not stale when the warrant issued weeks later. United States v. Adams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163986 (D.Me. Nov. 29, 2016).
A defendant can’t litigate a search motion in a 2255. Here, he chose to withdraw a suppression motion filed before trial. United States v. Jones, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164672 (E.D.Va. Nov. 28, 2016).*
Officers responding to a domestic disturbance call were told by the victim outside that the person inside was belligerent and potentially violent and clearly disturbed. The entry into the home to arrest was reasonable, balancing the sanctity of the home and the duty to prevent violence. Vangel v. Szopko, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21523 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2016):
Continue reading
techdirt: ACLU Suggests Jury Instructions Might Be A Fix For ‘Missing’ Police Body Camera Recordings by Tim Cushing:
We’ve written plenty of posts about police body cameras — how useful they can be and how useless they often are. What should result in additional law enforcement accountability has been turned into a mostly-optional documentation system. The new tech and its accompanying guidelines have done very little to increase accountability.
Body cameras are pretty much mainstream at this point, but when excessive force and/or misconduct are alleged, footage captured by police is often nonexistent. Officers disable recording equipment, delete footage, or simply claim the camera ‘malfunctioned.’ Some repeatedly ‘forget’ to activate their cameras ahead of controversial arrests and interactions. But what can be done about it?
Most states have a spoliation of evidence instruction.
Defendant’s phone was pinged at the request of law enforcement to find him after they developed strong reason to believe he took a 16 year old girl from Maryland to NYC to work her as a prostitute. This type of “injury” to a person is exigent enough for law enforcement to certify to the cell phone provider that they need to ping to phone because of ongoing injury. United States v. Gilliam, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21448 (2d Cir. Dec. 1, 2016):
Continue reading
Defendant’s discovery request relating to the execution of search warrants on his property is granted in part and denied in part. Essentially, he gets that which is really relevant like a video of execution of the warrant, chain of custody records, evidence logs, and the like, but he can’t have a prior draft of the search warrant affidavit that wasn’t presented to a judicial officer. United States v. Musto, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165265 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 30, 2016):
Continue reading