NYTimes: The Apple Case Will Grope Its Way Into Your Future by Farhad Manjoo:
If every device can monitor you, and if they can all be tapped by law enforcement officials under court order, can anyone ever have a truly private conversation? Are we building a world in which there’s no longer any room for keeping secrets?
NYTimes: Apple Is Said to Be Trying to Make It Harder to Hack iPhones by Matt Apuzzo and Katie Benner:
Continue reading
The New York eavesdropping statute only applies to communications in transit, not to emails. Despite the overbreadth of the email warrant, the court won’t suppress all the emails. Those that are suppressed have to be returned. The court argues for revitalization of the third party doctrine in Part 6 of the opinion. People v. Thompson, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 471, 2016 NY Slip Op 26045 (N.Y. Co. Feb. 17, 2016):
Continue reading
Illinois law before McNeely permitted warrantless blood draws, and pre-McNeely searches would be valid under Davis good faith. People v. Harrison, 2016 IL App (5th) 150048, 2016 Ill. App. LEXIS 73 (Feb. 18, 2016).
A 2254 petitioner gets a COA from the court of appeals for two issues but not his search issues which are procedurally defaulted and barred under Stone v. Powell. Blackshere v. Maclaren, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2861 (Feb. 9, 2016).*
Marijuana in defendant’s pocket, nervousness, and presence in a high-crime area was probable cause to search his moped under the automobile exception. United States v. Brown, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19433 (W.D.Va. Feb. 18, 2016).*
Boston Globe: Public kept in the dark about BPD’s use of covert cell trackers by Shawn Musgrave:
The Boston Police Department is keeping the public largely in the dark about how it uses covert cellphone trackers — devices that have raised civil liberties questions across the country.
USA Today: U.S. Marshals secretly tracked 6,000 cellphones by Brad Heath:
Federal marshals have secretly used powerful cellphone surveillance tools to hunt nearly 6,000 suspects throughout the United States, according to newly-disclosed records in which the agency inadvertently identified itself as the nation’s most prolific known user of phone-tracking devices.
WaPo: Constitutionality of StingRay use by D.C. police is challenged by Spencer S. Hsu:
Public defenders and civil liberties groups are challenging the constitutionality of the first-known use by local police in the nation’s capital of covert cellphone-tracking technology without a court warrant.
Criminal Law Reporter: Apple, FBI iPhone Fight Reveals Fourth Amendment Flaws by Jessica DeSilva:
Apple Inc.’s public refusal to comply with a court order requiring the company to assist the FBI in gaining access into an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters is casting doubt on the overall effectiveness and continued viability of Fourth Amendment protections for technology….Access to encrypted data is not a new issue for criminal defense attorneys, [New York City criminal defense attorney Joshua] Dratel said.
See one of the prior posts on Paxton’s case, the original Writs of Assistance case, argued today in 1761. John Adams credited James Otis’s argument, which he witnessed and attempted to transcribe, as helping foment the Revolution and led directly to the Fourth Amendment. Otis lost the case; well, he expected to; but he didn’t give up, and what a point he made.
At an NACDL meeting in Boston in 2008, I visited that room, and just sat and closed my eyes and tried to feel and imagine what was happening that day so long ago.
For this blog there have been at least 18,000 posts (the actual number is unknown because of lost data from the early years), reviewing at least 35,000 cases, and 1.54M actual visitors since 2010.
And, last November, fourthamendment.com achieved a place in the ABA’s Blawg 100. Truly an honor.
There is no First Amendment right to record police on the street doing their job in the Third Circuit. The First Amendment claim has to include expressive conduct, and this isn’t. The plaintiffs’ excessive force and false arrest claims, however, survive summary judgment and will go to trial. Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20840 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 19, 2016):
Continue reading
Searching a Bible during a house drug search was reasonable in case it was hollowed out. A page was dog eared and noted as potentially relevant to the case. Opening the Bible was reasonable under the circumstance. The case starts out as a CSLI search and ends as a house search, and the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Gilton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19253 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 17, 2016).
“The Court agrees that the mere claim that a CS is ‘credible and reliable,’ without further elaboration, may be insufficient to show that the CS was reliable.” But here there was more besides that statement, including pole camera surveillance of defendant’s house, GPS on a car bringing drugs, and three 30 day wiretaps. United States v. Carter, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18752 (W.D.Ky. Feb. 16, 2016).*
The issuing magistrate’s failure to swear the affiant officer is a judicial failure, not a law enforcement failure, and it doesn’t void the warrant, and there was probable cause. Also, the magistrate’s apparently cursory review of the affidavit still made the good faith exception apply. United States v. Gordon, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20516 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 19, 2016):
Continue reading
The affidavit for the cell phone search warrant provides at least a fair probability of a connection between defendant’s cell phone and his drug activity. “Many, if not most, people who use cell phones with storage capabilities keep important information on them, so it is reasonable to believe that a drug dealer might have records of transactions on his cell phone. I conclude that no ‘“reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all the circumstances.”’ United States v. Camou, 773 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 145, 129 S. Ct. 695, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)).” And, the good faith exception thus applies, too. United States v. Taylor, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18932 (D.Ore. Feb. 17, 2016).*
Defendant’s probation search was based on reasonable suspicion provided by a corroborated informant. Shepeard v. State, 2016 Del. LEXIS 87 (Feb. 18, 2016).*
Defendant’s Franks challenge fails as to alleged misrepresentations and omissions. Nothing is shown to be provable or even material to the probable cause finding. United States v. Ataya, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19476 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 18, 2016).*
WaPo: Court: No First Amendment right to videorecord police unless you are challenging the police at the time by Eugene Volokh:
Continue reading
Defendant’s conditional plea reserved “the issue of the validity of the search warrant,” and it limits the appeal. Thus, issues of consent and probable cause are outside the issues reserved in the conditional plea and thus abandoned. United States v. Olivas-Hinojos, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2804 (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016):
Continue reading
