I never bother to read World Net Daily because it is essentially wrong on everything. Last night’s emails includes this headline:
WND: DEC. 1: WHEN 4TH AMENDMENT WILL BE DESTROYED by Craige McMillan
Exclusive: Craige McMillan warns of reg that’ll create ‘surveillance megatropolis’
Curious? It’s about the SCOTUS amendment to Rule 41 posted here April 29th. The first three short paragraphs:
Continue reading
I’m in Idaho for a CLE after an oral argument yesterday in Arkansas.* After 9½ hours in airports and on planes I crash at the hotel at 10 PT. I wake up to emails about Constitution Day, one from a politician that has never read it, and has not a clue about the meaning of any of it. They won’t remember Bill of Rights Day in December.
________
* Pitts v. State, CR-80-40 (brief, argument) concerning FBI’s 2015 retraction of 1979 testimony that Pitts’ hair was found on a murder victim. Divided time with Strawhacker v. State.
WaPo: The Watch: Lunch links: Police agencies across America are assembling massive databases about you by Radley Balko.
Wired: Opinion: The Feds Will Soon Be Able to Legally Hack Almost Anyone by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Matt Blaze, and Susan Landau:
Under a new set of rules, the FBI would have the authority to secretly use malware to hack into thousands or hundreds of thousands of computers that belong to innocent third parties and even crime victims. The unintended consequences could be staggering.
WaPo: Eleven SWAT officers treated for exposure to fentanyl and heroin in drug raid by Lindsey Bever and J. Freedom du Lac:
Eleven police officers in Hartford, Conn., were taken to a hospital for possible exposure to heroin and fentanyl after drug powder blew through the air during a major narcotics raid, authorities said.
Ars Technica: Police union resists body cams, judge orders Boston cops to wear them by David Kravets:
Union objected to the devices, saying they were unsafe and not in their contract.
The Intercept: Long-Secret Stingray Manuals Detail How Police Can Spy on Phones by Sam Biddle:
HARRIS CORP.’S STINGRAY surveillance device has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in law enforcement for more than 15 years. The company and its police clients across the United States have fought to keep information about the mobile phone-monitoring boxes from the public against which they are used. The Intercept has obtained several Harris instruction manuals spanning roughly 200 pages and meticulously detailing how to create a cellular surveillance dragnet.
Defendant’s post-arrest statement to the police that the car was his girlfriend’s wasn’t enough to show standing. He could have testified to standing without being cross-examined about the merits of the car, yet he didn’t. Defendant’s statement before arrest that he always had his gun with him was enough to show probable cause for the search under the automobile exception. United States v. Flournoy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181143 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 3, 2015).
Defense counsel moved to suppress and it was denied. Defendant argued in his 2255 that if it had been argued differently, the motion would have won. This argument is just frivolous. United States v. Zeno, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120352 (W.D.La. Aug. 29, 2016).*
The City of Spartanburg ended a hostage situation in a convenience store by using a bulldozer to breach a wall. After it was over, the owner couldn’t afford to fix it, so the city condemned it and tore it down. The convenience store owner is entitled to no compensation because this law enforcement action was not inverse condemnation. Carolina Convenience Stores v. City of Spartanburg, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 265 (Aug. 31, 2016):
Continue reading
ProPublica: DNA Dragnet: In Some Cities, Police Go From Stop-and-Frisk to Stop-and-Spit by Lauren Kirchner:
Police in Florida and other states are building up private DNA databases, in part by collecting voluntary samples from people not charged with — or even suspected of — any particular crime.
A Title III warrant also included a request for realtime geolocation information, and it complied with Rule 41. United States v. Piggie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119718 (W.D.Mo. Aug. 16, 2016):
Continue reading
“Courts may consider a suspect’s evasive behavior in analyzing the existence of reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is armed and dangerous.” United States v. Truesdale, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119967 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2016).
The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop. “Brown’s flight following Detective Palermo’s order to stop (whether or not that order was reasonable), and Brown’s subsequent violation of several traffic laws, provided probable cause for Brown’s eventual arrest.” United States v. Brown, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119881 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2016).*
Officers’ stop of the defendant’s car about 15-20 minutes after a homicide was with probable cause on the totality of information based on it matching the description and being near the scene. United States v. Dalmau, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120822 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016).*
FedEx determined that packages were being diverted, and they narrowed it to a former employee in Memphis and his computer was creating fictitious labels on a hijacked FedEx account. A Franks challenge fails because the probable cause isn’t undermined. Nexus to defendant’s home was established by 39 labels redirecting shipments to his house. United States v. Crawford, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118246 (W.D. Tenn. May 16, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118116 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2016).*
There was probable cause for the search warrant in this case. Even if there wasn’t, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Taylor, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119115 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118873 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016).*
Defendant argued that the search warrant for documents exceeded the scope of the warrant. Counsel’s declaration was insufficient, but the court recognizes the argument and orders the parties to confer and determine that which they can agree. United States v. Lonich, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119372 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2016):
Continue reading
This case involves a return of property petition and the state sought forfeiture. The probable cause standard for forfeiture is essentially the same at that applied in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases. Thus, the State is required to prove more than mere suspicion, but less than prima facie proof before an item is subject to civil forfeiture. If the State is able to establish probable cause to support the seizure of the vehicle or property in question, the burden then shifts to the petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is not subject to forfeiture. Winchester v. State, 2016 Del. Super. LEXIS 450 (Sept. 6, 2016).
An anonymous call from a teenager about “boys” on a parking lot “playing” with guns was justification for the police to come and the initial stop was justified under Naverette. Defendant argues the age of the caller justifies less credibility, but no authority is cited, and the court would distinguish between somebody not yet a teenager anyway. United States v. Watson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118902 (N.D.Ind. Sept. 2, 2016).*
Removal of gunshot residue from defendant’s hands was valid under search incident doctrine. McNeely didn’t apply. Commonwealth v. Simonson, 2016 PA Super 207, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 527 (Sept. 12, 2016).
“Nonetheless, other facts support a finding of reasonable suspicion. Courts have recognized that rental cars often serve as a common mode of transportation for drug trafficking. … And the fact that Defendants’ rental car had a tinted license plate cover and a screwdriver in the door console further supported the presence of reasonable suspicion. Sgt. Dawsey testified that he was surprised to see a tinted license plate cover on a rental car because, based on his experience, tinted license plate covers are used to evade law enforcement by eluding traffic cameras and covering up the vehicle’s state of origin. … He also testified that the screwdriver in the rental car raised his suspicion because it may have been used to install the license plate cover. … Additionally, Defendants were traveling on a known drug corridor, a fact that also supports a finding of reasonable suspicion. … The Court concludes that each of these unique facts, considered in their totality, created reasonable suspicion for Sgt. Dawsey to prolong the traffic stop to dispel his suspicion.” United States v. Glenn, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119321 (M.D.La. Sept. 2, 2016).*
Plaintiff sued for false imprisonment based on his arrest held without probable cause by the state court. The district court denied qualified immunity, and the officers appealed. The officers did not ignore plainly exculpatory evidence, and, on the whole, there was justification for the arrest. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Goodwin v. Conway, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16656 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2016).
The officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop for a drug violation, but not probable cause. This justified extending the stop. United States v. Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118779 (D.Md. Sept. 2, 2016).*
Defendant’s CSLI information was obtained by court order under the Stored Communications Act, and defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in this third party information. State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 684, 2016 Neb. LEXIS 133 (Sept. 9, 2016):
Continue reading
The video of plaintiff’s takedown in the jail on video certainly appears to be excessive force in violation of clearly established law. Denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity properly denied. Jennings v. Fuller, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16633 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016)*:
Continue reading
Defendant’s motion to suppress is granted. About all the officer could show was that defendant was nervous, and that’s not reasonable suspicion to extend this stop. The questioning of defendant about his travel plans wasn’t any aid to the state because defendant was truthful. State v. Ward\, 2016 Del. Super. LEXIS 448 (Sept. 8, 2016).
The warrant was issued on probable cause, and a part of that was a plain view that occurred before the warrant was issued. State v. Norris, 2016-Ohio-5729, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 3592 (2d Dist. Sept. 9, 2016).*
Defense counsel couldn’t have been ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress evidence found at the scene of the crime without alleging that it was his. Thus, he lacked standing, and would have lost on the merits anyway. Mays v. State, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 679 Sept. 9, 2016).*
