WaPo: Bulk of D.C. body camera footage will be available to the public by Abigail Hauslohner:
The D.C. Council ended months of arguments Tuesday and approved a plan that would allow most footage captured by police wearing body cameras to be accessible to the public.
NJLJ: NJ Justices Mull Constitutionality of ‘Roving Surveillance’ by Michael Booth:
The New Jersey Supreme Court is considering whether to allow law enforcement to tap cellphones without a warrant when a suspect deliberately switches phones to avoid surveillance.
A search warrant to seize and search a phone contemplates extraction of data at a later time. It isn’t logically possible to do it at the time of seizure, and it requires special equipment that usually wouldn’t be brought to the scene of the search. United States v. Hendley, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161726 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 1, 2015):
Continue reading
The government established that packages sent from Hong Kong and observed in Doraville, GA were still at the “functional equivalent of the border” because it was apparent that they had not been opened or tampered with in transit. United States v. Lokhandwalla, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161725 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 2, 2015), R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161935 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 12, 2015). This case seemingly eliminates the need for a package to be searched at a major transit point. As long as it appears not to have been opened, it’s still the “functional equivalent of the border” which kind of nullifies this requirement:
Continue reading
The Hill: IRS to require warrants for cellphone spying by Julian Hattem:
The IRS is pledging to use controversial phone-tracking technology only after acquiring a warrant, a concession announced slightly more than a month after the agency’s use of the tool was first revealed.
NY Times: Op-Ed Contributor: The Real Problem With Police Video by Sarah Lustbader:
But while protesters have criticized the delayed response to the shooting, no one seems to be asking a more fundamental question: Why were the police in control of the footage in the first place?
Defendants lost their cell phone in a Wal-Mart. The person finding the phone looked in it to see if there was identifying information, but there wasn’t. The phone wasn’t password protected. The person handling it found what appeared to be child pornography on the phone, and she shared it with her fiance-coworker. They called the police who acquired the phone, and it took a while to get the phone to the right agency. The officer assigned the case was called as she boarded a flight to training. Over the next three weeks, she was in the office maybe one day and was in different training sessions every week. Finally she sought a search warrant, but she never looked beyond what the private search revealed. The three week delay was potentially too long, but the court doesn’t find it unreasonable on these facts. Essentially, defendants lost their reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone by not more aggressively seeking to reacquire it after being so careless to lose it. Alternatively, defendants abandoned the phone within three days. United States v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20809 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2015) (2-1). See also WaPo: Orin Kerr, 11th Circuit deepens the circuit split on applying the private search doctrine to computers.
From the opinion:
Continue reading
Thinking of buying a “smart car”? Chevrolet advertises “wired” cars. So, your car can rat you out*:
Robson Forensic: Vehicle Infotainment, Telematics & GPS Data in Forensic Investigations
Many of the new vehicles on the market today come equipped with sophisticated navigation, communication, and entertainment systems. These systems, in the process of performing their functions, monitor and record a tremendous amount of data that may be helpful toward investigating vehicle crash events and other incidents.
Robson Forensic experts who specialize in digital forensics are certified to acquire data contained within the infotainment and telematics systems often including, but not limited to:
Vehicle navigation information Saved and favorite locations Connected devices Call logs SMS messages Contacts Pictures and other media files Event data with associated time and location: Lights turning on/off Door opening/closing Gear shift to drive/reverse Parking lights on/off From vehicle crashes to criminal acts of theft, vandalism, or stalking, the data stored within vehicle infotainment systems can frequently be used to substantiate or fill-in missing information relevant to an investigation.
*We already knew that the black box and GPS could.
NY Times: Scope of National Security Inquiry Is Revealed by Colin Moynihan and Charlie Savage:
After a decade of court battles, the Internet entrepreneur who filed the first legal challenge to a type of secret administrative order known as a national security letter revealed on Monday the breadth of an F.B.I. demand in 2004 for information about a customer.
The defendants had arguable probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest, even though it proved that plaintiff was innocent. Therefore, they had qualified immunity. Judge Posner, however, dissents finding no probable cause at all. Burritt v. Ditlefsen, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20760 (Nov. 30, 2015):
Continue reading
“The United States appeals the district court’s order suppressing a firearm found in defendant Samuel Johnson’s car during a traffic stop. The district court ruled that because the police had unconstitutionally seized Johnson before he rolled through a stop sign, this traffic violation could not justify the stop. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that Johnson’s actions did not objectively demonstrate that he had submitted to police authority before he ran the stop sign, and he therefore was not seized before this violation. Accordingly, we reverse.” United States v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20614 (6th Cir. Nov. 23, 2015).
The informant hearsay shows probable cause for the search warrant. The court provides a detailed analysis of how informant hearsay is evaluated. On the totality of circumstances, probable cause was shown. United States v. Howard, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20705 (6th Cir. Nov. 24, 2015):
Continue reading
Defendant was a guest in a hotel room, and the renter left. Defendant still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. Defendant consented to the search of the room. “Moreover, the court finds Green’s testimony to be unbelievable in its entirety.” United States v. Green, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159678 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2015).
In a shots fired call, defendant’s car was stopped, and five people got out, none of them armed. There was thus probable cause under the automobile exception to look for the gun. United States v. Millard, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159765 (N.D. Iowa. Nov. 10, 2015).*
The search warrant here used a form off a computer, and the officer forgot to put in the correct address, and the two were 2.69 miles apart. The officers went to the place they intended, not the place specified in the search warrant. This was a typographical error, and the correct place was searched. The affiant also made a proper showing for a no-knock entry. State v. Ashworth, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2386 (La.App. 3 Cir. Nov. 25, 2015):
Continue reading
“Here, the evidence establishes that Officer Aljets exercised his authority to request Williams stop, rendering the encounter a seizure. The officer testified he ‘hit the siren horn’ which made a ‘whoop whoop’ sound in order to get Williams’s attention. The use of the siren is clearly a show of authority. See Harlan, 301 N.W.2d at 720. After Williams turned around and approached the police vehicle, Officer Aljets requested that Williams stand in front of the squad car. Officer Aljets then began questioning Williams. We conclude, based on our case law and the totality of the circumstances, that Williams was seized. See id.; see also State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 570 (Iowa 2012) (noting that a “commanding” tone of voice is evidence of seizure).” State v. Williams, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 1121 (Nov. 25, 2015).
Defendant volunteered early in the stop that he had a warrant out for him, and that alone justified continuing the stop. The driver of the vehicle told the officer that defendant put a gun under the seat, and that justified a search for it. United States v. Minor, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158570 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 24, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158278 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 24, 2015).
Officers had pole cameras installed around defendant’s property for a year, and they got a Title III warrant to install video and audio inside, and they did sneak and peaks to check on apparent drugs they saw being packaged. But, this case isn’t about that. When defendant left the property they asked patrol officers to make a stop, and a signaling violation occurred. The LPN was not in order, and the vehicle was going to be impounded without arrest, but defendant was allowed to retrieve his cell phone. The traffic stop was valid, and the seizure of $20,000 in cash was reasonable. [There was likely also PC for the automobile exception based on all that transpired on the wires, but that isn’t even discussed as a basis.] United States v. Munoz, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159443 (D.Utah Nov. 24, 2015).
In executing a search warrant for two hotel rooms for evidence of armed robbery occurring there, the officers encountered obvious evidence of identity theft in plain view, and it could be seized. “[W]hen they entered the room, he observed a bunch of financial documents with different names and folders with different names on the folders, hundreds of debit and credit cards with different names and some blank cards, and lots of information from tax refund cards in different names. Based on his observations, he believed the items to be evidence of fraudulent criminal activity because the location was a residence not a business. … Detective Barnes’ testimony did not clarify where all of this evidence was located, but he stated that, when searching for evidence of robbery, shells and casings are located in surprising places and that blood goes ‘crazy’ places.” United States v. Rives, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159708 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2015).
