Baltimore Sun: Baltimore Police institute new ‘use of force’ policy for officers as Justice Department report looms by Kevin Rector:
The Baltimore Police Department plans to implement a new use-of-force policy Friday that emphasizes the “sanctity of life,” stresses de-escalation and requires officers to intervene if they see a fellow cop crossing the line.
When there are two views of the suppression evidence before the USMJ that are plausible, it’s not the USDJ’s job to reject the R&R but adopt it. United States v. Hull, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83877 (D.Minn. June 27, 2016)*:
Continue reading
Outside the Beltway: The Fourth Amendment Was Meant To Protect All Of Us, Not Just The “Innocent” by Doug Mataconis:
. . .
Right off the bat, I must note with all due respect that the assertion that the protections of the Fourth Amendment, or any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights that can become an issue in a criminal case were only intended to protect the innocent simply does not comport with either the text of the Amendments themselves or the history behind it.
Defendant’s sex offense probation condition that he submit to computer searches was reasonably related to the offense. In re George F., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 518 (4th Dist. June 28, 2016):
Continue reading
The search warrant for defendant’s house was not based on any nexus between his alleged offense and his house. His car was involved in drug dealing, but his car being registered at his house isn’t nexus to the house. United States v. Brown, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11739 (6th Cir. June 27, 2016):
Continue reading
Defendant shipped a package from a UPS store in San Bernardino CA to Houma LA. His name wasn’t on the package as the sender or the recipient, so he didn’t have standing to challenge the search of the package. United States v. Thompson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83133 (E.D. La. June 27, 2016).
The probable cause for installation of a GPS authorized by a state judge was a close call, but legally sufficient. The fact the car traveled outside the jurisdiction of the judge issuing it wasn’t a Fourth Amendment. United States v. Faulkner, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11689 (8th Cir. June 27, 2016).
The affidavit for a GPS warrant only referred to the CI as “reliable,” and the affiant could have said more but didn’t. Still, the officer did do things to try to corroborate without elaborating. On the totality, probable cause was shown. United States v. Lomas, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11691 (8th Cir. June 27, 2016):
Continue reading
The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in § 1983 cases, joining other circuits. Lingo v. City of Salem, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11708 (9th Cir. June 27, 2016) (amended Aug. 8, 2016):
Continue reading
Verdict: A Potential Landmine in Waiting in Utah v. Strieff by Sherry F. Colb:
Continue reading
Defendant was stopped out in the parking lot of a store as an alleged accessory to shoplifting. The stop was with reasonable suspicion, but the frisk for weapons was not. Heroin was found in his pocket, and it is suppressed. State v. Harrison, 2016 Ida. App. LEXIS 77 (June 24, 2016).*
Defendant was found parked in an intersection at night, and that was cause for a stop. The fact other cars weren’t around wasn’t determinative. United States v. Carter, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82432 (E.D.Wis. June 24, 2016).*
On totality, defendant consented to a breath test. State v. Peed, 2016 Del. C.P. LEXIS 33 (April 27, 2016).*
“In determining reasonable suspicion in the context of roving Border Patrol stops, courts examine the totality of the circumstances, including the factors enunciated in Brignoni-Ponce. … These are (1) the area’s proximity to the border; (2) the characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agent’s experience in detecting illegal activity; (5) the driver’s behavior; (6) the aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) the number of passengers and their appearance and behavior. Id. The evidence from the suppression hearing related to each factor is discussed below.” Not all apply, but enough to show reasonable suspicion. United States v. Masters, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11593 (5th Cir. June 24, 2016).
Defendant’s IAC hearing didn’t include his search claim, so he can’t raise it on appeal. McNab v. Williams, 2016 Nev. App. LEXIS 257 (June 22, 2016).*
Four police flyovers of defendant’s house, one at 420′, was not a search under the Fourth Amendment, but it was unreasonable under the Hawai’i Constitution. 20-25 marijuana plants were seen in the flyover. Driving by the residence, however, no plants could be seen. In contrast with prior cases, the grow could be seen from the ground, too. “Additionally, the marijuana plants were located in the curtilage of his home, and should be less susceptible to warrantless ‘open view’ searches.” The search warrant was based on the flyover. The primacy of protection of the home is important. State v. Quiday, 2016 Haw. App. LEXIS 284 (June 21, 2016):
Continue reading
Defendant was a high school football player injured during a game, and he went to the hospital. He was expressly concerned about the contents of his school-issued equipment bag to the point that school officials nearly had reasonable suspicion. When the bag was dropped to the floor, there was a metal clunking sound, and that permitted a search that revealed a firearm. Defendant was a felon in possession. The search was reasonable as a school search under T.L.O. State v. Lindsey, 2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 76 (June 24, 2016).
Joint occupant could consent to search of loveseat in living room. United States v. Zastrow, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82359 (D.S.D. June 24, 2016).*
Discovery of meth in the engine compartment of defendant’s car, coupled with his recent arrest for having a magazine to a handgun on him, defendant being a frequent arrestee of the St. Paul police, the officer had probable cause to search the car. United States v. Class, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82667 (D.Minn. May 5, 2016).*
The challenged part of the home search here was a protective sweep before a probation search, and it was reasonable. Elisoff v. State, 2016 Alas. App. LEXIS 118 (June 22, 2016) (mem.).*
2255 petitioner’s claim that his defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress fails because it would be denied because it was valid as a protective sweep. Guadarrama v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81617 (E.D.Tenn. June 23, 2016).*
The fact there was an unused marijuana pipe in defendant’s car didn’t create reasonable suspicion to believe defendant was involved with what was under her codefendant’s pillow in their hotel room. They were being evicted from their motel room, and the officer said they were merely standing by to watch, but she was otherwise under detention the entire time, and the court finds no causal break. United States v. Robinson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82101 (D.Kan. June 23, 2016).*
Quick entry and exit of a house under surveillance for drug sales led to police following defendant’s car. Furtive movements occurred inside, and defendant delayed stopping the car until those movements stopped. All that was reasonable suspicion to detain for a drug dog. Telling defendant he couldn’t leave while the dog was coming wasn’t unreasonable. State v. Barber, 279 Ore. App. 84, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 786 (June 22, 2016).
Defendant consented to the initial search on the highway, and that revealed evidence of tampering with the car. That gave reasonable suspicion to continue the stop longer, and even to move the car to a garage. Defendant’s argument that he withdrew consent when asked about going to the garage is thus ineffective. There a dog alerted on the car. United States v. Padilla, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81777 (E.D.Ark. June 23, 2016).*
NYTimes: Mark Zuckerberg Covers His Laptop Camera. You Should Consider It, Too. by Katie Rogers:
Continue reading
The court declines to find a retired police officer acting as a non-lawyer judicial commissioner in issuing search warrants was not neutral and detached. His social media and socialization with police and remaining an FOP member aren’t enough, but maybe he should “reconsider” all that. United States v. Carter, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81123 (M.D.Tenn. June 22, 2016):
Continue reading
Boston Globe: The FDA is stockpiling military weapons — and it’s not alone by Jeff Jacoby:
Continue reading
