A dog sniff of a car while waiting for the driver’s and passenger’s DL info to come back did not in any way extend the stop, so it’s valid. (4-3) State v. Allen, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 789 (Nov. 2, 2015), rev’g State v. Allen, 328 Ga. App. 411, 762 S.E.2d 111 (2014). The dissent disagrees: “I write because I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion. In this case, it is clear that the officer had effectively completed his traffic investigation prior to deploying his drug dog and, as such, his search of the vehicle was unlawful.” [And I hate cases like this because it sanctions dog sniffs in every traffic stop as long as the dog gets there within a couple of minutes or is already there. And, again, some people are terrified of dogs, and police dogs are not passive and can be really aggressive.]
In sum, because the dog sniff was conducted while Officer Jackson was waiting for the return of the computer records check on Allen’s identification, which was an ordinary officer safety measure related to the mission of the traffic stop, the dog sniff did not prolong the stop at all. Continue reading →
Posted inDog sniff, Reasonableness|Comments Off on GA: If the dog sniff comes before dispatch reports back on the DL check, the dog sniff is valid (4-3)
Reconsideration was sought under Rodriguez, and the court finds that defendant consented to the search before the stop became too long. United States v. Hendrix, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146860 (M.D.Tenn. Oct. 29, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inConsent, Reasonableness|Comments Off on M.D.Tenn.: “[D]etermining when a traffic stop has been completed, or reasonably should have been completed, can be complicated”
For many years, law enforcement agencies used (mostly outdated) wiretapping laws to justify arrests and prosecutions of citizens who recorded them during their public duties. For a long time, they succeeded, with Illinois seeing a great many of these thanks to its (unconstitutional) law. That law has since been nullified by the courts, but there are still a few legacy laws out there being abused to shut down recordings of police officers.
Another win has arrived for citizens who play a key part in the law enforcement accountability process. Photography Is Not A Crime reports that New Hampshire native Alfred Valentin has had wiretapping charges against him dismissed. Incredibly, New Hampshire prosecutors tried to use another state’s law (via an appeals court decision) against Valentin in hopes of getting the charges to stick.
Posted inCell phones|Comments Off on TechDirt: Court Tosses Bogus Wiretapping Charge Against Man Who Recorded Cops Who Raided His House
Govt Technology: Does the Fourth Amendment Trump Your Locked Smartphone? by Daniel Rothberg:
Because of recent updates to the encryption on Google and Apple software, newly updated Androids and iPhones no longer can be unlocked — even if law enforcement officers have a warrant.
(TNS) — It’s the modern-day version of an age-old question criminal investigators face: What do you do with an unbreakable safe?
That’s the analogy Christopher Lalli, a Clark County assistant district attorney, uses to describe the situation detectives face when criminal investigations involve passcode-protected smartphones.
Because of recent updates to the encryption on Google and Apple software, newly updated Androids and iPhones no longer can be unlocked, even if law enforcement officers have a warrant.
Las Vegas officers were randomly running license plates and they ran a Saturn’s plates on a Walgreen’s parking lot after the occupant went into the store. It showed that the owner had outstanding traffic warrants and was on parole. The occupant came back out and they wanted to see if he was the owner. Seeing the police, he fled and tossed the keys. He was finally caught and detained for hours without being Mirandized. This detention might have violated the Fourth Amendment, but he was on parole and his actions gave an objective justification for the search of the car. [The court does not even mention abandonment of the keys constitutes an abandonment of the car. Most courts would hold that.] United States v. Retta, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147187 (D.Nev. Sept. 3, 2015).*
Defendant was known to have been deported before, and he was, according to reliable CIs, involved in drug dealing again. They were looking for him on the parking lot of a Poteau, Oklahoma casino. He consented to a search of his car. They found in the trunk a sealed case of aluminum beer bottles. They opened it, and found fewer than a full case, and some of the bottles were too light. The case had excess glue on it which suggested it was a hiding place for drugs. The bottles that were too light contained methamphetamine. Even if the consent didn’t extend to the sealed container, by then there was probable cause under the automobile exception. United States v. Camargo-Chavez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18821 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2015).*
Defendant stayed with his aunt and uncle in a room that everybody had access to when he wasn’t there. His uncle consented to a search of the room for a firearm when he wasn’t there. He didn’t contest the consent generally, but he argued that the uncle couldn’t consent to a search between the mattress and box springs. “While it may be that there were certain areas or items within the room to which the uncle’s authority to consent did not extend, there is no basis in the record to conclude that the area between Marte-Cruz’s mattress and box spring was one of them.” [Suggesting maybe a different result with a dresser or a suitcase?] United States v. Marte-Cruz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19063 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2015).
“In this case, the district court found that it was reasonable to believe that Mitchell had apparent authority to consent to the initial search based on the fact that Mitchell told the officers that she lived with Clay for several months, that her appearance corroborated her story that Clay assaulted her that very morning, that she provided information as to the location of Clay’s drugs and gun, and that she was willing to sign a consent form on which she declared the residence her premises.” United States v. Clay, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19072 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2015).*
Posted inApparent authority, Scope of search|Comments Off on CA2: Uncle’s apparent authority over nephew’s room included under the mattress
A police car’s overhead lights can be ambiguous, but, to the motorist, they mean you are stopped and should not attempt to leave. It’s common knowledge the consequences of not staying stopped could be severe. Defendant was thus stopped, but it was valid under the community caretaking function: He was on a rural road at night in December, stopped with his hazard lights on. Anderson v. State, 2015 UT 90, 2015 Utah LEXIS 271 (Oct. 28, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inCommunity caretaking function, Seizure|Comments Off on UT: Police car’s overhead lights usually mean seizure to the motorist the police car is behind
Texas JP’s can’t issue evidentiary search warrants by statute. This was partially that and mostly for cocaine. The trial court properly severed the invalid portion and suppressed, and the cocaine was properly admitted. Van Spotwood v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11223 (Tex.App. – Eastland Oct. 30, 2015).
One person let police into what was found to be a drug house to arrest another. A reasonable protective sweep revealed defendant in the basement. The entry was lawful, and his statement was spontaneous and admissible. Simpson v. Commonwealth, 2015 Ky. LEXIS 1947 (Oct. 29, 2015).*
Even if state law was not followed in subpoenaing subscriber information under ECPA by a state officer it will not be suppressed in federal court under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Ortega, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147638 (S.D.Ga. Oct. 30, 2015).*
Posted inExclusionary rule, Protective sweep|Comments Off on TX11: Invalid portion of warrant properly severed, but the cocaine was still admissible
Officers were on a civil assist in aiding repossession of a car that was involved in a family dispute going back and forth for a couple of years. “Viewing the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, we agree with the district court that the Officers’ conduct crossed the line from mere presence to active facilitation and assistance,” and that violated the Fourth Amendment for the seizure of the disputed car. Middaugh v. City of Three Rivers, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18856 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2015).
A jail cell search that resulted in defendant’s losing a letter from his lawyer was not shown to have prejudiced him. He still communicated with the lawyer and there was no showing of prejudice that the contents of the letter ever aided the state. State v. Thompson, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 2608 (Oct. 27, 2015).*
Thinking of adopting body worn cameras? Here’s where to begin.
Body worn cameras are the latest in technology enabling better policing. Departments across the United States and the world are adopting this new technology, to reduce use of force instances, make more accountable officers, create better community relationships and to strengthen evidence documentation.
Posted inBody cameras|Comments Off on Microsoft: Body-worn camera policy guide: Key guidance for managing body-worn camera video
The federal government has been fighting hard for years to hide details about its use of so-called stingray surveillance technology from the public. The surveillance devices simulate cell phone towers in order to trick nearby mobile phones into connecting to them and revealing the phones’ locations. Now newly released documents confirm long-held suspicions that the controversial devices are also capable of recording numbers for a mobile phone’s incoming and outgoing calls, as well as intercepting the content of voice and text communications.
Posted inCell site simulators|Comments Off on Wired: Turns Out Police Stingray Spy Tools Can Indeed Record Calls
Amid the recent pressure on police to wear body cameras, one thing is often overlooked: Not all cameras are created equal. In fact, cameras vary a lot — and the variations — some contentious — can have a profound effect on how the cameras are used and who benefits from them.
Posted inBody cameras|Comments Off on NPR: Stealth Mode? Built-in Monitor? Not All Body Cameras Are Created Equal
Defendant was handcuffed and questioned in his driveway about a CI’s planned transaction with him that the government controlled. He was handcuffed in his driveway and 10 officers were there. The court finds his statements about the money in his garage were not voluntary, and the seizure of the money was not shown to be inevitable because, the way this fake transaction went down, it was unlikely the officers would have cause to enter the garage without a search warrant. “At best, the agents would have obtained a warrant allowing them to enter the home to interrupt the staged drug transaction, but because that transaction never transpired, the Government cannot show ‘that it would have conducted a lawful search absent the challenged conduct.’ United States v. Pelletier, 700 F.3d 1109, 1116-17 (7th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s motion to suppress the $36,000 must therefore be granted.” United States v. Ramos-Guerrero, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145955 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 28, 2015).*
2255 petitioner’s trial counsel more than adequately argued the search and seizure argument and lost. That doesn’t mean it was deficient. Therefore, he fails on the performance prong of Strickland. On the prejudice prong, what petitioner raises wouldn’t have changed the outcome anyway. Christian v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146985 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 2015).*
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the smell of marijuana was coming from the car. Consent doesn’t matter because the officer had probable cause. State v. Baker, 2015-Ohio-4478, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4367 (5th Dist. Oct. 27, 2015).*
Posted inAttenuation|Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: With arrest in driveway on a fake drug deal, govt fails to show entry into garage was inevitable; cash suppressed
Defendant and others were suspects as serial robbers, and the police placed GPS devices on two cars in 2008. On defendant’s, he was not the owner and he just borrowed it. Placing the GPS in the first place was not a trespass of any interest of his. This was more analogous to Knotts than Jones, and Jones is easily distinguishable. In addition, defendant was caught “red-handed” in one robbery and the car fled, and a codefendant was killed when he refused to drop a gun at arrest. Thornton v. Commonwealth, 2015 Ky. LEXIS 1942 (Oct. 29, 2015). (Note that this was four years before Jones. Some courts would find standing in a borrowed car; Kentucky no.)
Defendant was staying with his grandfather, who couldn’t get him out of the house to work and a shoving match ensued. Grandfather called the police and consented to a search. Defendant wasn’t paying rent, and precedent already holds that occupant has consent authority over a guest’s room. Defendant preserved his state constitutional claim despite the trial court’s failure to rule on it, but defendant gives no reasoning why the state rule should be different. State v. Belieu, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 1024 (Oct. 28, 2015).
Posted inConsent|Comments Off on IA: Grandfather could consent over his grandson living in separate room
Defendant argued that the search of the air filter container was excessive for an inventory because it was not an area where things were normally stored. The policy explicitly provided for search of that area, and the court has previously upheld an inventory of the air filter area. United States v. Ball, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18817 (8th Cir. Oct. 29, 2015).
Posted inInventory|Comments Off on CA8: Air filter could be searched in inventory
Custody for Miranda and Fifth Amendment purposes may be different than custody for Fourth Amendment purposes. Morton v. United States, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 516 (Oct. 29, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inSeizure|Comments Off on DC: Custody for Miranda and Fifth Amendment purposes may be different than custody for Fourth Amendment purposes
A warrantless arrest on probable cause is reasonable. Even though the officer had the PC for weeks, he was not required to get an arrest warrant. United States v. Kellam, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146596 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 29, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Even though the officer had the PC for weeks, he was not required to get an arrest warrant
In days after Baltimore burned with unrest over Freddie Gray’s death in police custody, two FBI surveillance planes circled low above the city. But they weren’t using normal cameras to capture activities on the ground.
Instead, the planes used a system with sophisticated thermal imaging and night vision capabilities, according to newly released FBI and Federal Aviation Authority documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union through a Freedom of Information Act request. And the law enforcement agency held onto the videos it took during the flights.
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on WaPo: FBI spy planes used thermal imaging tech in flights over Baltimore after Freddie Gray unrest
Defendant saw the narcs pull up and he walked toward them and was arrested in the street. Nobody else was in his yard. A protective sweep lifting the top of his barbecue grill when he was more than 20′ away from it was unreasonable. There was no chance he or somebody else was going to get to it for a possible weapon. State v. Moultrie, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2084 (La.App. 1 Cir. Oct. 23, 2015).
Officers attempted to stop the defendant for drinking in public and he ran. In pursuit, he pulled out a gun and attempted to toss it, but he didn’t get to until he was tackled going over a fence. Since there was reasonable suspicion to approach him, the attempted abandonment of the gun wasn’t precipitated by an illegal act. Mathis v. State, 2015 Del. LEXIS 567 (Oct. 23, 2015).
Posted inProtective sweep|Comments Off on LA1: Protective sweep of outdoor grill invalid when def arrested 20′ away
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced." —Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today." — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property." —Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment." —United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." —Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable." —Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." —Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” —United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.” —United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“Children grow up thinking the adult world is ordered, rational, fit for purpose. It’s crap. Becoming a man is realising that it’s all rotten. Realising how to celebrate that rottenness, that’s freedom.” – John le Carré, The Night Manager (1993), line by Richard Roper
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
The book was dedicated in the first (1982) and sixth (2025) editions to Justin William Hall (1975-2025). He was three when this project started in 1978.
