Miami Herald: He was arrested for meth, but the crumbs in his car were Krispy Kreme doughnut glaze by Alex Harris:
Daniel Rushing was arrested, charged with possession with a weapon, strip-searched and jailed in December. The 64-year-old Orlando man told officers he’d never done drugs in his life, and the crumbs were from his Krispy Kreme doughnut. Weeks later, a state crime lab proved him right.
New Law Review Article: Protecting the Fourth Amendment in the Information Age: A Response to Robert Litt by Cindy Cohn (short form here without footnotes)
The testimony of the defendants on consent was consistent, detailed, and credible, but the testimony of the officers was vague. Thus, the consent is found invalid. Since the consent search made it into the affidavit for the search warrant, it has to be purged. The remainder shows no probable cause, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Scott, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93372 (C.D.Cal. April 27, 2016):
Continue reading
The court finds on the face of the pleadings that one defendant had no standing to contest the search but goes to the merits because the government failed to assert standing. United States v. Pierce, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93614 (M.D.Ala. July 19, 2016):
Continue reading
The officer here came upon a car parked in an empty car wash bay in the middle of the night in a high crime area. When he saw and recognized defendant, to him a known criminal, he had reasonable suspicion to act to protect his safety. This was, essentially, a classic Terry stop. He called and waited for backup before looking in the windows of the car to see if there were others. United States v. Evans, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13633 (8th Cir. July 27, 2016).
Where the facts of excessive force aren’t conceded by the defense, there is no jurisdiction over an appeal of a denial of qualified immunity. Rolen v. City of Cleveland, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13695 (6th Cir. July 25, 2016).*
The tipster provided only easily known public information, but for the fact defendant sat in his car and smoked marijuana during his lunch breaks. Police watched him and he didn’t do that. Because the police never corroborated the one observable nonpublic fact, they lacked reasonable suspicion from the CI. United States v. Derrick, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96022 (E.D.Wis. June 10, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96006 (E.D.Wis. July 22, 2016):
Continue reading
The CI’s information defendant would be delivering crack cocaine to a specific apartment complex and an officer’s personal observations of defendant arriving there and engaging in what appeared to be a drug deal were sufficient to create reasonable suspicion to justify a brief investigatory stop. State v. Allen, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 542 (July 25, 2016).
Defendant’s wife freely consented to the search. State v. Wells, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 540 (July 25, 2016).*
Defendant’s motion to suppress was cast as a motion in limine that the police officers should be barred from testifying because their police car wasn’t properly marked. The trial court denied the motion and defendant conditionally pled. He can’t appeal this because it was a motion in limine and never mentioned the Fourth Amendment. State v. Parker, 2016-Ohio-5094, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 2975 (5th Dist. July 21, 2016).
Defendant was on Lincoln University in violation of a no trespassing directive to him a month earlier. His arrest justified a search incident of the person that produced a firearm, and he was a convicted felon. United States v. Hawkins, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13552 (8th Cir. July 26, 2016).*
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in containers he left fleeing from a stolen truck. State v. Stubblefield, 279 Ore. App. 483, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 928 (July 20, 2016).
The officer smelled burnt marijuana during his stop of defendant, and defendant produced a joint. Out of the car, defendant was told the officer was going to search the car, and he fainted. The car search was with cause from the smell. State v. Cabrera, 2016 R.I. Super. LEXIS 85 (July 21, 2016).*
When defendant was arrested on outstanding warrants, his car was not subject to search incident. State v. Sanchez, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7712 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg July 21, 2016).
“[T]he clearly established law in existence in May 2011 would not have apprised a reasonable police officer similarly situated to Officer Acosta that he could be held liable under § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation based on handcuffing a minor pursuant to a lawful arrest.” The arrest was at school for disrupting class in violation of New Mexico statute, which he also gets qualified immunity for. A.M. v. Holmes, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13490 (10th Cir. July 25, 2016).*
There was a factual basis for the stop, so the pretext argument fails. United States v. Diaz-Cordova, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91591 (N.D.Ohio July 14, 2016).
It appears that the U.S. Marshals had objectively reasonable belief that defendant was where they entered to arrest him on a warrant, so the case is remanded to the USMJ to rerun the hearing. United States v. Maclin, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88683 (W.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016),* rejecting, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91118 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2016).*
At an immigration checkpoint, about 30 or 40 seconds elapsed before the driver consented to a search that led to the discovery of undocumented aliens hidden in the tractor. The search was lawful. United States v. McMillon, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13240 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016).*
NPR: To Reduce Bias, Some Police Departments Are Rethinking Traffic Stops by Jeff Cohen:
Continue reading
Fusion: Police asked this 3D printing lab to recreate a dead man’s fingers to unlock his phone by Rose Eveleth:
So instead of asking the company that made the phone to grant them access, they’re going another route: having the Jain lab create a 3D printed replica of the victim’s fingers. With them, they hope to unlock the phone.
The FBI planted recording devices outside two courthouses in Northern California to catch conversations on the street between their targets. The devices were planted in a light fixture, a bus stop, and on a parked vehicle. The court finds no reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversations because the conversations were in normal volume that were loud enough to be caught by passersby, “whether at the courthouse entrance or at the bus stop, undermining the reasonableness of any subjective expectation of privacy.” It did not matter at all to the court that no one else did overhear; just that it was theoretically possible, suggesting a whisper might have shown a reasonable expectation of privacy because the eavesdropping device did not catch whispers. [This is wrong, but read it because, if this opinion survives appeal, the only place there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy is in one’s own home and one’s own mind.] United States v. Marr, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96172 (N.D.Cal. July 22, 2016) [this will be in §§ 3.09, 3.11, 3.12 & 42.04 in 2016 supplement]:
Continue reading
Defendant was parked with high beams on on a one way street. The statute unambiguously says that it was not a violation unless there was an oncoming vehicle, and being on a one way street or an officer on foot doesn’t count. Thus, the stop was invalid. This is not a mistake of law under Heien because the statute is unambiguous. State v. Scriven, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 698 (July 20, 2016).*
Defendant did not consent to the PBT test because he wasn’t told of right to refuse, and he passed the field sobriety test. People v. Taylor, 2016 IL App (2d) 150634, 2016 Ill. App. LEXIS 476 (July 20, 2016).*
