WaPo: Radley Balko’s “The Watch” Blog: A new report shows the limits of police body cameras

WaPo: Radley Balko’s “The Watch” Blog: A new report shows the limits of police body cameras
Cameras can be a step toward transparency, but it depends on how they’re used.

Posted in Body searches | Comments Off on WaPo: Radley Balko’s “The Watch” Blog: A new report shows the limits of police body cameras

NC: Strip search for drugs in buttocks was based on PC

Officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had drugs secreted on his person. When a search of his clothing produced nothing, officers could then make him remove his clothes to search underneath them. Drugs were hidden in his buttocks. State v. Collins, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 138 (Feb. 2, 2016).

USMJ’s recommended denial of a motion to suppress a cell phone for lack of standing is remanded back for a hearing. United States v. Mobely, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11936 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 2, 2016),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175850 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 14, 2015).*

Defendant consented to a search of his bag in the baggage compartment of a Greyhound bus at the Albuquerque station. He contended that the DEA officer conducted an illegal tactile search by feeling the bag for its contents before seeking consent (as in Bond v. United States), but there is no proof that the officer did. He denied it, and defendant didn’t see it happen. United States v. Diaz-Rivera, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11742 (D.N.M. Jan. 5, 2016).*

Posted in Burden of proof, Strip search | Comments Off on NC: Strip search for drugs in buttocks was based on PC

techdirt: Prosecutors Argue Cell Site Location Data Is Something Every User Shares With ‘The Rest Of The World’

techdirt: Prosecutors Argue Cell Site Location Data Is Something Every User Shares With ‘The Rest Of The World’ by Tim Cushing:

The state of Maryland’s defense of the Baltimore PD’s warrantless use of Stingray devices continues, taking the form of a series of motions unofficially titled Things People Should Know About Their Cell Phones.

The last brief it filed in this criminal prosecution claimed “everyone knows” phones generate location data, therefore there’s no expectation of privacy in this information. As commenters pointed out, people may know lots of stuff about records they’re generating, but that doesn’t mean law enforcement should have warrantless access to those records.

Posted in Cell site location information | Comments Off on techdirt: Prosecutors Argue Cell Site Location Data Is Something Every User Shares With ‘The Rest Of The World’

NY3: Nighttime search was justified, and defendant wasn’t even home

Police justified a nighttime search warrant at defendant’s house. He was a suspect in a robbery with a knife to the victim’s throat where the victim was forced into an apartment. In the ensuing struggle, the victim said the suspect was cut and bled. The police went to the scene of the robbery at night and knocked, getting no answer. The landlord let them in to see if there was anybody injured inside and there was no one there. Police then applied for a warrant to search, which was issued about midnight. The nighttime search was justified. Defendant wasn’t even home [so where’s the prejudice?]. Also, incomplete sentences in the affidavit for probable cause didn’t affect the showing. People v. Ferguson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00717, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 713 (3d Dept. Feb. 4, 2016).

Defendant was charged in 2006 with a cold case murder from 1974 when DNA from under the victim’s fingernails and his fingerprints were matched by new scientific evidence. The search of defendant’s car retrieving a paper towel with his DNA on it was unreasonable for lack of any probable cause connecting the car to the murder. It was, however, harmless beyond any doubt considering his DNA was on the victim and his fingerprints in her apartment. Commonwealth v. Dame, 473 Mass. 524 (Feb. 3, 2016).*

Posted in Automobile exception, Nighttime search | Comments Off on NY3: Nighttime search was justified, and defendant wasn’t even home

Cal. AG argues exclusionary rule shouldn’t apply in a death case penalty phase; held, not preserved below

Defendant’s car was not on the premises when a warrant was served there, so it was not subject to the search warrant. Defendant denied ownership of the car, but nobody inquired into whether he had a legitimate possessory interest in the car, and, by all accounts, he did. The search of the car finding a gun was, therefore, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. On this record, however, it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of all the other evidence in the case. Judgment and death sentence affirmed. The state’s argument that the exclusionary rule should not apply to the penalty phase of a death penalty case is rejected as unpreserved for failure to litigate it in the trial court. [We can expect to see this again. The AG’s argument, to me, falls on its face as a fallacy, but I’m never going to be an appellate judge, either.] People v. Casares, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 626 (Feb. 4, 2016):
Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule | Comments Off on Cal. AG argues exclusionary rule shouldn’t apply in a death case penalty phase; held, not preserved below

D.Nev.: SWAT team in your house is “custodial” for Miranda purposes

After the LVMPD SWAT team raided defendant’s house and held everybody at gunpoint in zipties, the situation was custodial. The government had no evidence defendant was Mirandized before he made an incriminating statement. [The fact the government argued it wasn’t is the surprise here.] United States v. Humphries, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175823 (D.Nev. Sept. 24, 2015):
Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off on D.Nev.: SWAT team in your house is “custodial” for Miranda purposes

ABAJ: Texas police turn into ‘mobile debt collectors’ with license-reader program

ABAJ: Texas police turn into ‘mobile debt collectors’ with license-reader program by Debra Cassens Weiss:
Continue reading →

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on ABAJ: Texas police turn into ‘mobile debt collectors’ with license-reader program

Reason.com: Fourth Amendment Protections for Emails Inch Forward in Congress

Reason.com: Fourth Amendment Protections for Emails Inch Forward in Congress by Scott Shackford:

Legislation would require warrants for old communications.

There is a big, huge gap in your Fourth Amendment protection against government searches without a warrant that goes all the way back three decades. That’s when Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which like many laws, somehow managed to do the opposite of what it is named. This was not necessarily on purpose (for once), but rather a failure to predict how email and digital communications would ultimately become Americans’ primary method of talking to each other.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act treats all emails stored by a third party provider as “abandoned” after 180 days and allows for law enforcement agencies to gain access to the contents without having to get a warrant. At the time, third party providers weren’t actually storing emails for long periods. Now they are.

Posted in E-mail | Comments Off on Reason.com: Fourth Amendment Protections for Emails Inch Forward in Congress

Voice of San Diego: Watchdog Group Urges Sheriff to Tweak New Body Camera Policies

Voice of San Diego: Watchdog Group Urges Sheriff to Tweak New Body Camera Policies by Kelly Davis:

When should an officer be allowed to review body camera footage? Before writing an incident report or after?

Posted in Body cameras | Comments Off on Voice of San Diego: Watchdog Group Urges Sheriff to Tweak New Body Camera Policies

WaPo: Future of the exclusionary rule? Preview of Utah v. Strieff

WaPo: Preview of Utah v. Strieff by Orin Kerr:

SCOTUSblog has posted a preview I authored about Utah v. Strieff, a Fourth Amendment case on the scope of the exclusionary rule. Here’s the introduction:
Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, SCOTUS | Comments Off on WaPo: Future of the exclusionary rule? Preview of Utah v. Strieff

CA6: Judicial immunity against false arrest damages case for judge ordering confinement for non-payment of fines

A municipal judge and clerk were absolutely immune from a damages claim for false arrest under § 1983 where the judge ordered the defendant to jail for nonpayment of fines. Even if wrong, they are judicial acts entitled to immunity. The court also is an arm of the state and has Eleventh Amendment immunity. Ward v. City of Norwalk, No. 15-3018 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2016):

Although the state requires a hearing before the judge orders commitment, Judge Ridge’s failure to hold a hearing may have been in excess of jurisdiction, but was not in complete absence of it. Furthermore, to the extent that Judge Ridge kept plaintiffs in jail to credit time served against outstanding court costs, he may have acted in excess of his jurisdiction, but again was not in complete absence of it.

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA6: Judicial immunity against false arrest damages case for judge ordering confinement for non-payment of fines

E.D.Mich.: “I know what you’re looking for, and all I have is a little weed” is reasonable suspicion

Officers in a “semi-marked vehicle” saw defendant on a street corner, and pulled up and stopped and asked him in a conversational tone what he was doing. “Defendant responded that he had just left the liquor store, that he already knew what they were looking for, and that all he had on him was ‘a little weed.’” This led to a patdown on reasonable suspicion, and a gun was found. United States v. Carr, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11317 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 1, 2016).*

A protective sweep of defendant’s home on her arrest was permissible because there was reason to believe others were inside. United States v. Norman, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1297 (11th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016).*

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: “I know what you’re looking for, and all I have is a little weed” is reasonable suspicion

CA3: Throwing three bags over a fence and walking away was an abandonment

Police wanted to talk to defendant in a child pornography investigation, and they learned he was at a storage unit he rented. When defendant saw the police, he threw three bags (“tote bag, a zippered duffel bag, and a wheeled computer bag”) over the fence and walked away from it. That was clearly an abandonment. United States v. Curran, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1662 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2016).

Over-tinted windows was the basis for the stop and ordering the defendant out because the officer couldn’t see inside. When the door opened defendant was moving around inside, not answering questions, and the smell of marijuana was obvious. The bulge in his pocket was suspicious. It was 36 grams of cocaine, and it was lawfully seized. State v. Clark, 2016-Ohio-333, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 284 (6th Dist. Jan. 29, 2016).*

Posted in Abandonment, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA3: Throwing three bags over a fence and walking away was an abandonment

D.N.M.: While affiant wasn’t sworn, other witnesses were in testifying on application

Defendant consented to a search after being told of the right to refuse. Officers also sought a search warrant for a safe from a tribal judge, and the affiant wasn’t sworn to. Additional testimony was, however. The consent saves the search of the safe, and there was good faith based on the additional testimony added on to the written warrant application. United States v. Viarrial, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175718 (D.N.M. Oct. 27, 2015).

Assuming, without deciding, that the search warrant for the cell phone in this case lacked probable cause, it wasn’t so lacking that reliance on it was objectively unreasonable. United States v. Adams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12387 (D.Minn. Jan. 5, 2016), adopted United States v. Doss, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12385 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2016)* [Once again, a court decides good faith without giving a clue to law enforcement, prosecutors, the defense bar, or issuing magistrates whether probable cause exists, and this is a default of judicial function to the police. The court might as well as said: close enough for government work.]

Posted in Consent, Good faith exception, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on D.N.M.: While affiant wasn’t sworn, other witnesses were in testifying on application

W.D.Wash.: The govt didn’t violate the 4A by hacking into a child porn server and running it for two weeks, forwarding all user info to another govt computer

The government took over a child pornography website in Washington state and ran it for two weeks via a Title III warrant from a USMJ in the Eastern District of Virginia. They sent all information of visitors to that website back to Virginia. “While controlling Website A, the FBI sought to identify the specific computers, and ultimately the individuals, accessing the site, by deploying a network investigating technology (‘NIT’) that ‘cause(d) an activating computer—wherever located—to send to a computer controlled by or known to the government, network level messages containing information that may assist in identifying the computer, its location, [and] other information[.]’ Dkt. 47-1, at 34. Prior to deploying the NIT, on February 20, 2015 the FBI sought and obtained a warrant (‘the NIT Warrant’), which was issued by a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia. Id.” The warrant from the Eastern District of Virginia did not preclude essentially hacking into the Washington computer, planting the software to gather information about users and send it back to Virginia. It was also not a general warrant. United States v. Michaud, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11033 (W.D.Wash. Jan. 28, 2016):
Continue reading →

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Overbreadth | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: The govt didn’t violate the 4A by hacking into a child porn server and running it for two weeks, forwarding all user info to another govt computer

Juris.org: Why Police May Still Have Free Reign to Search an Arrestee’s Cell Phone Despite a Warrant

Juris.org: Why Police May Still Have Free Reign to Search an Arrestee’s Cell Phone Despite a Warrant by Veronica Reyes of St. John’s University School of Law, Class of 2016:
Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones | Comments Off on Juris.org: Why Police May Still Have Free Reign to Search an Arrestee’s Cell Phone Despite a Warrant

NPR: Encryption May Hurt Surveillance, But Internet Of Things Could Open New Doors

NPR: Encryption May Hurt Surveillance, But Internet Of Things Could Open New Doors by Alina Selyukh:

The report concluded that information from some apps and devices like smartphones may be harder for government investigators to intercept because of stronger encryption. But, it said, we are connecting so many more things to the Internet (light bulbs, door locks, watches, toasters) that they could create new surveillance channels.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on NPR: Encryption May Hurt Surveillance, But Internet Of Things Could Open New Doors

IN: Having a person with the same name as person of interest is RS in itself to at least find out whether he’s the same guy

Willie Moore was on a trespass list at an apartment complex. The officer had a Willie Moore in front of him. That was reasonable suspicion to at least talk with him without knowing it was the same Willie Moore to at least find out. Moore v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 18 (Jan. 29, 2016).

In a traffic stop, the officer developed reasonable suspicion of possession of marijuana to call for a drug dog. Hansbrough v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 20 (Jan. 29, 2016).*

Defendant and his wife traveled from Oklahoma to Texas and bought multiple items needed to manufacture methamphetamine while shopping at different stores. Police knew that they previously had made similar purchases, and their behavior was consistent with a profile of methamphetamine manufacturers and was unusual enough to amount to reasonable suspicion. Then defendant admitted all they needed for a search on probable cause. Boyett v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1035 (Tex. App. – Texarkana Feb. 2, 2016).*

Posted in Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN: Having a person with the same name as person of interest is RS in itself to at least find out whether he’s the same guy

PA: Entry up 200′ driveway to inspect hit-and-run vehicle did not violate curtilage

Defendant was suspected of being involved in a hit-and-run accident with a motorized wheelchair. Police got to his house, 200′ off the road, about an hour after the incident. Their entry up the driveway to inspect the damage on his pickup truck did not violate his curtilage. The court gives an interesting analysis and approach to the curtilage argument for all to consider. Commonwealth v. Eichler, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 60 (Feb. 2, 2016):
Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Trespass | Comments Off on PA: Entry up 200′ driveway to inspect hit-and-run vehicle did not violate curtilage

KS: Statute on parole searches governs over the parole conditions where statute requires RS

Statute says that parolees are subject to search on reasonable suspicion but the parole conditions have no such restriction. While Samson authorizes parole searches without reasonable suspicion, the legislature made that determination, and the parole condition violates the statute. Reasonable suspicion is required. State v. Toliver, 2016 Kan. App. LEXIS 5 (Jan. 29, 2016).

Defense counsel did not provide IAC. Defendant admitted he had marijuana so where’s the prejudice in not showing him the lab report? Also, the search was good, so there was no point in contesting that. Not talking about trial strategy in a simple case where defendant pled is not IAC. Bernard v. State, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1064 (Jan. 28, 2016).*

Posted in Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on KS: Statute on parole searches governs over the parole conditions where statute requires RS