EFF: NSA Spying: Government’s Latest Delay Tactic Fails by Cindy Cohn:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today rejected the government’s latest attempt to delay consideration of whether the NSA’s tapping into the Internet backbone is legal in Jewel v. NSA, clearing the path for the first appellate court decision on whether this formerly secret mass surveillance program violates the Fourth Amendment.
Slate: The Hidden Bias of Cameras by Adam Benforado:
Body and dashboard-mounted cameras used by police don’t give an objective account of the facts. Here’s how we should reform them.
Houston Chronicle: Woman files official complaint over roadside vaginal probe by Dylan Baddour:
A Houston-area woman who alleged Harris County sheriff’s deputies held her down for a cavity search in a Texaco parking lot filed a complaint with the sheriff’s office today, her attorney said.
Defendant’s gesture to parole officers at his door was reasonably interpreted by them as waving them in. Once they were inside he didn’t protest. When his girlfriend came out of a room, they asked if there was anybody else in there, and he said “No, there’s no one else here except us. You can look.” That was consent, too. United States v. Deleston, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107341 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015).*
The circuits are split on whether a Fourth Amendment seizure of children from the home requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Moreover, what is an exigency is not consistent among the circuits. The point is that this circuit has not ruled, and that’s qualified immunity for the officers of the agency. Doe v. District of Columbia, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14014 (D.C.Cir. August 11, 2015):
Continue reading
Orange County Register: Who’s policing the police? ACLU app says it does just that by Roxanna Kopetman:
The app allows him to record and instantly upload his interactions with police, something the 69-year-old sculptor from Laguna Beach wishes he’d had at several points in his life.
Politico Magazine: The Murders Not Deemed Newsworthy by April Saul:
When Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson a year ago, journalists from around the world beat a path to that troubled, rioting community to report on a deep, enduring racial divide in America. If only they’d been paying attention all along.
WaPo: D.C. would release most police body camera footage under new plan by Aaron C. Davis:
Police in the nation’s capital would release more footage from body cameras than in any other major U.S. city under a plan from Mayor Muriel E. Bowser that reverses her previous opposition to making such videos public.
WaPo: Computer searches and the problem of withdrawn consent by Orin Kerr:
Last week, a district court in Atlanta handed down a fascinating decision on whether agents can search a copy of a seized computer after consent to search the computer was withdrawn. The opinion, United States v. Sharp, 2015 WL 4641537, (N.D.Ga. August 5, 2015) (Batten, D.J.), rules for the government that agents have that power. My tentative view is that the decision is probably wrong, and I thought I would explain the case and why I’m not persuaded by the court’s decision.
The state has a difficult burden in showing justification for entry into a building it believes is abandoned. Here, the place had only a couch and debris on the floor and defendant was dealing drugs from there, but there was a letter there showing that was his address. The trial court found that enough. Normally the defendant has to show standing, but the state has to show abandonment. State v. Randolph, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 126 (August 7, 2015):
Continue reading
The statute of limitations for a § 1983 search claim runs from the date of the search. Belanus v. Clark, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13648 (9th Cir. August 5, 2015).
Defendant wasn’t prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to challenge the search and seizure here because it would have had no affect on the outcome of the case. There was reasonable suspicion for a stop, and the cell phone search produced pictures of defendant tending marijuana plants that were cumulative at best to plenty of other evidence in the case. Rivera v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103666 (W.D.Tex. August 6, 2015).*
A police car pulling behind a car with emergency lights on is a stop. One can’t refuse to pull over and just keep going. Here, the officer was investigating a domestic complaint, and the stop was justified. Reasonable suspicion developed for DUI. People v. Brown, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5404 (August 6, 2015), aff’g 226 Cal. App. 4th 142, 171 Cal. Rptr. 3d 480 (4th Dist. 2014).
After a bank robbery, two robbers fled in a Kia with money with a tracking device. The car ultimately crashed, but only one was in the car. The tracking device showed it was still in the neighborhood. Residents called the police to say that a man was running through back yards and jumping fences and gave a good description. Defendant was captured matching that description. There was probable cause for his arrest despite the fact his backpack and the money weren’t on him. United States v. Bell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102593 (D.Nev. August 5, 2015).*
NC Policy Blog: The Heien Effect by Sharon McCloskey:
In her dissenting opinion, state Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson projected what might follow from a ruling condoning an officer’s subjective interpretation of the law: …
Hudson was right.
On defendant’s stop, the officer saw a cut off straw in defendant’s shirt pocket, and a frisk was justified because of hands in the pockets. The frisk of his thin material shorts revealed a lighter and more straws and it was reasonable to infer they were drug paraphernalia. Then the actual drugs were also found by plain feel. http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/ap-2467.pdf, 2015 Alas. App. LEXIS 129 (August 7, 2015).
Defendant’s stop was justified by a BOLO. The search of the vehicle was shown to be by consent. United States v. Johns, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104071 (M.D. Fla. August 7, 2015).*
The DUI refusal statute does not criminalize a person’s exercise of his Fourth Amendment rights.State v. Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, ¶ 19, 858 N.W.2d 302. State v. Kordonowy, 2015 ND 197, 2015 N.D. LEXIS 211 (August 6, 2015).*
Defendant’s arrest for possession of an unlicensed firearm in the Territory required knowledge that the defendant had no license, not just that he possessed a firearm. Motion to suppress granted. People v. Pryce, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 91 (Super.Ct. July 27, 2015).
The search of defendant’s cell phone was a year and a half before Riley, but Riley applies because the case is still pending. The government relied on consent, but the court finds that it did not sustain its burden. People v. Colon, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 94 (Super.Ct. August 5, 2015).*
Officers can issue a notice of forfeiture under Michigan law, and the person subject to the forfeiture has a valid state remedy, and that satisfies due process. “Officer Jones’s testimony is troubling, and municipalities should take care to operate within the confines of the law so as not to abuse their power, especially when acting under provisions as draconian as administrative forfeiture. However, the Michigan statute does not establish a federal constitutional right and Langston could have challenged the lack of connection to narcotics activity postdeprivation had he filed a claim in accordance with the statute. Thus, assuming an adequate showing of municipal responsibility, Langston has not shown that the alleged policy of ignoring the CSA’s requirement that the property sought to be forfeited be connected to a controlled substance violates a federal constitutional right.” Langston v. Charter Township of Redford, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13884 (6th Cir. August 6, 2015).*
Defense counsel did not file a motion to suppress his stop near a grow operation in a field or pictures on his cell phone. There was a factual basis for the stop, and the pictures on his cell phone were less prejudicial to him than the testimony from his codefendant putting him at the grow operation. Rivera v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103666 (W.D.Tex. August 6, 2015).*
A CODIS hit on defendant’s DNA was probable cause for a confirmatory DNA test. State v. Goins, 2015-Ohio-3121, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3039 (10th Dist. August 4, 2015).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress before defendant’s guilty plea where the witness affidavit provided in the 2255 didn’t contradict the justification for the stop. The outcome wouldn’t be different. United States v. Grayson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103506 (N.D.Ill. August 6, 2015).*
Defendant’s arguments against the search are conclusory and without factual support. Still, there was justification for the stop based on her pulling out of an apartment complex and nearly running into a police car. United States v. Qazi, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103444 (D.Nev. June 24, 2015).*
Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to conduct a knock-and-talk. Defendant’s consent to enter wasn’t involuntary because he thought he couldn’t refuse because he was on probation. State v. Fretheim, 2015 UT App 197, 2015 Utah App. LEXIS 206 (August 6, 2015).
North Carolina’s de minimus rule for traffic stops is no longer valid under Rodriguez. Here, however, there was reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff. State v. Warren, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 674 (August 4, 2015).
“Sexually explicit” rather than “obscene” was clearly sufficient for particularity in a manufacturing child porn warrant. State v. Melia, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1850 (August 3, 2015).*
CI’s prediction of defendant’s route of travel with heroin was corroborated by GPS placed on defendant’s car with a warrant. United States v. Reaves, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13745 (7th Cir. August 6, 2015).
A citizen informant called DC Metro police to complain of drug dealing in the neighborhood by a man on a red bicycle with a gray/purple shirt. Police found a man and bike fitting the description in the area, and the stop was with reasonable suspicion. Further reasonable suspicion developed from him taking things out of his waistband and putting in his pocket. Morgan v. United States, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 361 (August 6, 2015).*
Defendant was stopped with reasonable suspicion: “An officer observed Heath riding his bicycle with weapons strapped to the handlebar in a high crime area. The officer who stopped Heath recognized him from prior encounters and knew that he was a convicted felon, which, combined with the first officer’s earlier observation that Heath had been carrying firearms, produced a reasonable suspicion that Heath had engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Heath, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13666 (11th Cir. August 5, 2015).*
