CNN: FBI may have found a way into terrorist’s iPhone by Jackie Wattles:
On the eve of a court showdown with Apple, the Department of Justice wants to cancel the hearing, saying it may have found a way into the iPhone of Syed Farook, the gunman in the San Bernardino shooting.
Defendant lived in a partially gated community, but that didn’t mean that officers couldn’t enter through a gate that was usually open during the day. In the parking lot was defendant’s car and in plain view was property that obviously was stolen from the victim. Under the automobile exception, the entire car was subject to seizure to search it later. State v. Carter, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 202 (March 8, 2016).
The trial court failed to follow the dictates of Grady v. North Carolina that satellite based monitoring of sex offenders is a search subject to the reasonableness clause. The summary conclusion it was reasonable is rejected; remanded. State v. Blue, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 293 (March 15, 2016); State v. Morris, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 291 (March 15, 2016).
We’ve been down a few times in the last ten days, usually for a few hours at a time. Then, nearly all day Saturday. Frustrating to be down at all. Apparent reason: heavier traffic than we allowed for and paid for: techies reported Saturday evening 96,340 real, non-robot visitors in February (daily avg. 3,322), and 48,000 thru Friday in March, so the server couldn’t meet that capacity. We’ve increased capacity to try to prevent it from happening again. And, that means that the little counter on the right margin is way off because that’s over a 1.1m visits a year.
[Note: This page will recur as an explanation for a few days.]
An off-duty officer witnessed a robbery at a 7-Eleven at 4:30 am and followed the masked man out on the street where the mask was removed, and he got a look at the robber’s face. He followed to a duplex with a common door where the man went in. He couldn’t see which unit. He called 911 and a uniform officer came. The uniform officer went to one door with the off-duty behind him and knocked. When the door opened, the off-duty ID’d the man as the robber. The entry for arrest was reasonable under Dorman. United States v. Anderson, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4864 (3d Cir. March 17, 2016):
Continue reading
Officers had no reasonable suspicion to stop defendant in a high crime area, even after he fled from them when they told him to stop. This was “provoked” flight, contrary to Wardlow’s “unprovoked” flight. “When a vehicle approaches someone in a high-crime area, and the occupants yell, ‘Hey, come here,’ the Court believes it is reasonable for the person approached to ‘go about his business’ by reversing course and walking a different direction, and even running away from the unknown vehicle. Royer, 460 U.S. at 498.” United States v. Turner, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33036 (M.D.La. March 15, 2016).
The trial court erred in concluding defendant did not consent to a breath test. State v. Depol, 2016 Ga. App. LEXIS 148 (March 15, 2016).*
The Franks issues did not rise to materiality. The officer was credible that the time stamp on the digital photograph showed the picture taken before the search rather than after was an error on the camera because he didn’t check the time stamp for accuracy. The camera was automatic and did all the work for him. Thus, the court finds that the time stamp was simply wrong and not an attempt to be misleading. United States v. Davis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176908 (D.Nev. Dec. 29, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32437 (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2016).
Police responded to plaintiff’s house because of a call that he was cutting or stabbing and acting “crazy.” Two women were there crying. He was Tased for not heeding police commands to not go back into his house. “As the party requesting summary judgment, the police officers had the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine dispute regarding whether they acted wantonly or maliciously. The police officers met their burden.” Harris v. City of Columbus, 2016-Ohio-1036, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 933 (10th Dist. March 15, 2016).*
Amtrak police are “railroad police” under New York law, and they are subject to § 1983. (Fourth Amendment claim dismissed; other claims survive.) Chunn v. Amtrak, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176987 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34506 (S.D.N.Y. March 17, 2016).
Officers had probable cause to believe that plaintiff was a mental health danger to himself or others and that a mental commitment might be in order. A confrontation ensued and plaintiff was Tased. Summary judgment was properly granted the officers for qualified immunity. Zucker v. City of Farmington Hills, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4895 (6th Cir. March 14, 2016).*
As a passenger, defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in computers found in the car because he did not attempt to prove they were his. The motion to suppress said they were his but he put on no proof. Minassian v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 2814 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) March 17, 2016):
Continue reading
A probation condition allowing computer searches for material prohibited by law was overbroad under the Fourth Amendment because the condition allowed for searches of vast amounts of personal information unrelated to defendant’s criminal conduct or potential for future criminality. Narrower means could include either requiring defendant to provide his social media accounts and passwords to his probation officer for monitoring, or restricting his use of or access to social media websites and applications without prior approval of his probation officer. People v. Appleton, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 190 (6th Dist. March 15, 2016):
Continue reading
Forced prison strip search of female inmate to have her genitalia inspected by a male guard stated a claim for relief on her Fourth Amendment claim. The inmate retained a limited right to bodily privacy, there were disputes of fact concerning whether the search occurred and the officers’ justification, and there was no evidence that she was in such imminent danger of harming herself that the search had to be conducted immediately by the male officer at the scene. Harris v. Miller, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4701 (2d Cir. March 15, 2016).
Defendant’s CI had been watched dealing with defendant, and he was arrested on an outstanding shoplifting warrant. The search of his person revealed heroin, and he described how and how often he obtained it from defendant. The search warrant for defendant’s house was based on probable cause, and the good faith exception would also apply. United States v. Reed, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32367 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 14, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32065 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 14, 2016).*
Notre Dame’s police department serves a police function, therefore a public function, and it is subject to public records disclosure, even though the university as a whole isn’t. [So, no private search doctrine?] ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Sec. Police Dep’t, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 74 (March 15, 2016).*
The 2009 warrantless use of GPS tracking on defendant didn’t violate law at the time so the good faith exception permits its use. United States v. Rainone, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4672 (7th Cir. March 14, 2016).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails because the misstatements in the affidavit were not material to the finding of probable cause. There were inaccuracies, but they were negligent at best and don’t rise to the level of culpability required for a Franks challenge. United States v. Sember, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33810 (S.D.Ohio March 16, 2016).
Defendant’s guilty plea waived his motion to suppress. State v. Hammond, 2016-Ohio-971, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 879 (6th Dist. March 11, 2016).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the search of his place on his mother’s consent. There was no showing it would have been granted. Powell v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32959 (W.D. Tex. March 14, 2016).*
Defendant was a passenger in a stolen car, and there was no showing he knew anything about it so there was no probable cause for his arrest. But, he had no standing in the car in the first place, and there is a difference between an illegal stop and illegal detention. United States v. Springfield, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32492 (D.Mont. March 11, 2016):
Continue reading
ABA Journal: EFF’s Cindy Cohn calls for lawyer support in fight over mass surveillance by Victor Li:
Continue reading
The police entry into the house on a 911 call from a woman about a domestic abuse call wasn’t justified when she answered the door and their questions and wasn’t hurt and didn’t seem scared. United States v. Harris, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4565 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016):
Continue reading
NewsOK: OU professor: Fourth Amendment at heart of dispute between FBI, Apple by Stephen E. Henderson
Continue reading
