Connecticut Law Tribune: Police Video Surveillance of Psychologists’ House Prompts Lawsuit by Christian Nolan:
A married couple from Westport is suing the town and several of its police officers for what they claim is unlawful video surveillance of their home.
A whistleblower contacted the Coast Guard that his oil tanker he was on approaching Mobile had been oil dumping. The Coast Guard boarded the ship when it was docked and conducted an inspection of the engine room and common areas. They obtained a search warrant to copy hard drives off computers after the whistleblower slipped them a flash drive of files. The boarding of the ship and search of the common areas for an oil dumping inspection was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The company and some officers were indicted for pollution crimes. United States v. DSD Shipping, A.S., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116865 (S.D.Ala. September 2, 2015):
Continue reading
Defendant’s LPN showed that the owner was the same person who had committed criminal trespass. The driver matched the general description of the owner, so that justified getting the driver out. State v. Goines, 2015-Ohio-3505, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3427 (2d Dist. August 28, 2015).
In Florida, the smell of lighter fluid and a Gatorade bottle is part of a meth lab. Officers were at defendant’s property four days earlier searching for a meth lab and had come back. There was a fire burning next to defendant’s truck and a lighter fluid can was in the fire. The officer could smell lighter fluid around defendant’s truck. In the engine compartment the officer could see a Gatorade bottle. Based on past experience, this was probable cause for meth production, and the fire made exigent circumstances. State v. Smith, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12956 (Fla. 1st DCA August 31, 2015).*
More information could probably be included in all search warrant affidavits, but that doesn’t make them misleading for omissions. The omissions must be “dispositive” of probable cause, not just cast a little doubt on it. United States v. Wijetunge, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115530 (E.D.La. August 31, 2015):
Continue reading
Ars Technica: New law permits North Dakota cop drones to fire beanbag rounds from the sky by Cyrus Farivar:
To pass new warrant requirement, lawmaker compromised to allow less-than-lethals.
NYTimes: After a Killing, Body Cameras Are Expanded in San Antonio by Manny Fernandez:
One day after a bystander’s cellphone video was released that appeared to show sheriff’s deputies fatally shooting a Hispanic man who had his hands raised in surrender, officials here voted Tuesday to finance additional body cameras for deputies in the field, as federal authorities said they had opened an investigation into whether the man’s civil rights had been violated.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Officer, homeowner shot when DeKalb police respond to wrong house by Ben Gray and Alexis Stevens. They entered solely because of an unlocked, not open, door:
A DeKalb County police officer was critically injured, a homeowner injured and dog killed in a shooting Monday night.
Three officers were responding to a report of suspicious person, but instead went to the wrong home in the 1500 block of Boulderwoods Drive, near Bouldercrest Road, Cedric Alexander, director of public safety, said late Monday. Officers weren’t given a street address, but went to a home matching the description given by a 911 caller, Alexander said.
When officers got to the rear of the house, they found an unlocked screen and unlocked door and believed an intruder was inside, according to police. Officers announced their presence, but it wasn’t known how it escalated to gunfire.
A Phoenix officer was shot and killed on duty. “More than 300 public safety personnel, the chief of police, and the mayor quickly converged on the scene. Roughly 100 people entered the area where Sergeant Drenth’s body was discovered, including the three plaintiffs, who were assigned to canine search teams.” Male DNA was found at the scene. All but five voluntarily contributed DNA to exclude them. The five weren’t suspects, but they needed to be excluded. They steadfastly refused to provide DNA, so the PPD applied for a court order to get it. After it was obtained they sued for nominal damages, a declaratory judgment, and to have it destroyed. A court order, a warrant, to obtain evidence does not require that the person from whom it is obtained be a suspect in a crime. DNA can be collected by court order to exclude people from an investigation. Bill v. Wheeler, 13-15844 (9th Cir. August 31, 2015):
Continue reading
The Hill: Supreme Court pressed to rule on police access to cellphone data by Lydia Wheeler:
Continue reading
Dallas News: Invasive body cavity searches will now require a warrant by Brandi Grissom:
Continue reading
The officer only had permission to move defendant’s vehicle. Inside, he moved around something to get a better look at a bag and searched it. The motion to suppress should have been granted because this was not a valid plain view. State v. Zacher, 2015 ND 208, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 233 (August 25, 2015).
Officers observed what could only have been a hand-to-hand drug deal with the defendant acting as lookout. That gave them probable cause to stop and arrest and conduct a search incident. State v. Haynes, 2015-Ohio-3432, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3336 (1st Dist. August 26, 2015).*
Journal Sentinel: Report shows deep racial disparity in arrests in Madison:
A black person in Madison is over 10 times more likely than a white person to be arrested, according to an analysis published Sunday by the Wisconsin State Journal.
The newspaper reviewed two years of Madison Police Department arrest data and found police arrested whites at a rate of 2.6 arrests per 100 white residents annually, compared to arresting African-Americans at a rate of 27.6 arrests per 100 residents. Hispanics also were more likely than whites to be arrested.
NPR: Why Utah Is The Only State Trying To Track And Limit SWAT-Style Tactics by Martin Kaste:
The phrase police militarization conjures up an image of cops wrapped in Kevlar, barging into homes with semi-automatic weapons. But familiar as that image is, we don’t know how common it is. There are simply no good statistics on police tactical operations in America. The federal government doesn’t keep track, and neither do the states — with one exception: Utah.
A challenge to evidence under the rules of evidence is brought by a motion in limine, not a motion to suppress. That’s for constitutional grounds. State v. Johnson, 2015-Ohio-3449, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3327 (9th Dist. August 26, 2015).
One defendant’s cell phone was subjected to a warrantless search and there was no objection at trial to the incriminating text messages. Riley was decided after conviction, and there is no plain error viewing the case from the perspective of harmless error. There was plenty of other evidence of guilt of the conversations besides the text messages. Without some error, it can’t be plain error. [No mention of good faith in reliance on older law.] United States v. Blackman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15280 (6th Cir. August 27, 2015).*
The government’s motion to reconsider the granting of the motion to suppress is a rehash of its prior argument already rejected. United States v. Silva-Rentas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114823 (D.P.R. August 27, 2015).*
For an exigent entry into a dwelling, probable cause is required. Here, police intended to search every apartment in two buildings looking for a shooter, and there was no probable cause as to any particular unit. They searched 21 apartments before the shooter was found. Plain view doesn’t work for the state here because the entries were invalid, so the view wasn’t “plain.” Peters v. State, 2015 Md. App. LEXIS 108 (August 26, 2015):
Continue reading
Defendant was stopped after coming out of a bathroom when a 13 year old boy told his mother that a man in the bathroom flashed something shiny at him under the stall wall. When the officer confronted him, he was fidgety and wouldn’t keep his hands out of his pockets. The officer seized defendant’s cell phone and got consent* to look through it. Because the officer had probable cause that something was awry and he was attempting to leave, the seizure of the phone was reasonable. Child porn was found on the phone. [*Consent is admitted in the defense brief on appeal. Otherwise, the opinion looks like it was an invalid search incident. The appellate court didn’t do a good job of explaining for a published decision.] Meiburg v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9066 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) August 27, 2015).
Defendant was a known burglar with a distinct MO, and his car was seen in town after a rash of burglaries while one officer was at the scene of one of them. His stop was with reasonable suspicion. After he got out of the car, two pieces of paper fell from his waistband, and he tried to kick them under the car. That was an act of abandonment. State v. Edwards, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 693 (August 27, 2015).
It’s the state’s burden to argue any exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 273 Ore. App. 298, 356 P.3d 674 (2015) (under submission 2½ years), aff’d, State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Ore. 163, 2017 Ore. LEXIS 166 (March 2, 2017).
Defendant was unconscious at the hospital, but there were no exigent circumstances justifying taking his blood without a search warrant. State v. Ruiz, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8961 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi – Edinburg August 27, 2015).
A factual dispute on whether the officer knew that there was an order of protection against the plaintiff precluded summary judgment for the officer for unnecessarily handcuffing him. al-Lamadani v. Lang, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15235 (6th Cir. August 26, 2015).*
