The Hill: Facial recognition talks break down as privacy advocates withdraw by David McCabe:
A group of privacy advocates have walked away from administration-backed talks to develop a privacy code of conduct for facial recognition software.
The nine advocates — who represent groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — said they didn’t believe that they would reach a set of shared principles with industry representatives.
In a controlled delivery of a box of marijuana to an address on Fort Campbell, Kentucky, officers got a verbal search authorization from the on duty base magistrate. The box was left on the porch because no one was home. They waited for somebody to take the package inside, it was, and then they came to the door. A “verbally hostile teenager” answered the door, and he was taken outside. There was no indication anybody else was in the house for Buie purposes. The box was ten feet inside the door, but officers conducted a whole house protective sweep finding drug paraphernalia and unlisted personal firearms. Defendant was charged with it all. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals sustained the search, but this court suppresses. United States v. Keefauver, 2015 CAAF LEXIS 547 (C.A.A.F. June 12, 2015), reversing 73 M.J. 846 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2014):
Continue reading
Defendant’s Facebook post “involved in to kill public officials and destroy government buildings,” including the obligatory disclaimer of exercising free speech rights, led to three search warrants. The warrant was for computers and electronics but it didn’t specify what the officers were looking for. The affidavit was referenced, however, and that led the court to conclude that the warrant was sufficient by incorporating the offenses mentioned in the affidavit. The good faith exception also applied. United States v. Bradbury, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76849 (N.D.Ind. June 15, 2015):
Continue reading
techdirt: CA Legislators Pass Warrant Requirement For Phone Searches, Gut Transparency Stipulations To Appease Law Enforcement by Tim Cushing:
The California Senate has passed a bill that creates a warrant requirement for searches of cellphones, tablets and electronic devices. This would be slightly different than the recent Supreme Court decision, which only creates a warrant requirement for searches incident to arrest. In terms of this legislation, the proposed law would forbid warrantless access to personal electronic devices (whether or not “incident to arrest”), as well as data stored at third-parties but accessible through these devices. (via Boing Boing)
The Hill: Surveillance reform wars continue by Patrick G. Eddington:
The annual Intelligence Authorization bill has become the latest battleground in the ongoing Surveillance Reform War.
The bill’s inclusion of language that would bar the relatively independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from investigating the links between the NSA’s surveillance programs and covert actions prompted a barrage of amendments to the bill. While originally scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to decide on whether to approve any of the amendments submitted, the GOP majority abruptly cancelled the Rules Committee meeting, possibly partly in response to the controversy over the attempt to limit the PCLOB’s oversight activities.
Defendant’s prior arrest for methamphetamine was a factor that could be considered when the officer approached defendant for over purchasing pseudoephedrine at a drug store found on a records check. There was no reason for the officer to doubt the veracity of the meth arrest record in considering it. State v. Stevens, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 459 (June 12, 2015)*:
Continue reading
During defendant’s arrest, he admitted he was in the U.S. unlawfully, so he could be detained for ICE officers. United States v. Arrazola-Vanega, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76006 (D.Colo. May 21, 2015).*
Defendant was seen riding a bicycle and the officer could tell he smelled of alcohol and seemed intoxicated. He let defendant go. Ten minutes later, the officer saw defendant driving a car, and that was reasonable suspicion he was DUI, and the stop was justified. Chagrin Falls v. Bloom, 2015-Ohio-2264, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 2173 (8th Dist. June 11, 2015).*
Defendant’s stops in Hot Spring County, Arkansas and then Nacogdoches County, Texas were for violations of the traffic code, and they were extended with reasonable suspicion. United States v. Bams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76350 (E.D.Tex. April 6, 2015).*
Defendant was allowed to keep his sneakers when he was checked into the jail, but there was no right to keep them. The police showed up with a search warrant for his clothing in jail property. That included the sneakers. The court finds that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the sneakers since they were in the jail, effectively mooting the search warrant issue as to them. Commonwealth v. Silva, 2015 Mass. LEXIS 322 (June 11, 2015).
Defendant was on a housing project parking lot and was considered a trespasser. The officers approached his car and saw a gun in plain view. State v. Hardin, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 463 (June 12, 2015) (dissent).*
BAC blood draw violated McNeely, but remanded for determination of consent. Davis v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 337 (June 12, 2015).*
A mistake of fact about the existence of a stop sign (down because of construction) denies reasonable suspicion for the stop. This is not a mistake of law under Heien, a question reserved for another day. State v. Schueman, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 482 (June 10, 2015).
Parolee defendant’s home was subject to search without cause. When he opened the inside door and had an armored outside door, the officer smelled marijuana, but defendant wouldn’t cooperate. They came in through a window. United States v. Stevenson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75564 (E.D.Mich. June 11, 2015).*
Defendant unconditionally pled. “Because any claim concerning a motion to suppress was waived by Collazo-Santiago’s presumptively valid guilty plea, he cannot obtain relief on this basis under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” United States v. Santiago, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74873 (W.D.Wis. June 10, 2015).*
WaPo: Drug war thuggery by Radley Balko: A SWAT team goes to a medical marijuana dispensary and acts the fool and eats the pot candy.
From the OC Weekly:
Continue reading
NJLJ: Justices to Mull Warrantless Access to Phone Records by Michael Booth:
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over whether prosecutors should be allowed to obtain criminal suspects’ telephone records without first obtaining a warrant.
A search warrant cannot issue for defendant’s house merely because the court issues a domestic violence order of protection. There must be a showing of probable cause and for what to enter the house. “Special needs” doctrine does not apply. State v. Elder, 2015 N.C. LEXIS 452 (June 11, 2015):
Continue reading
Defendant was fleeing from the police after an attempted traffic stop, and he drove into his garage. The officers could enter his garage in hot pursuit from a jailable misdemeanor. The court declines to adopt a different standard under the state constitution. Commonwealth v. Jewett, 2015 Mass. LEXIS 321 (June 11, 2015):
Continue reading
“[C]ourts have repeatedly and routinely held that a warrant that authorizes the search of ‘premises’ at a given residential address allows the search of detached garages, sheds, and other outbuildings even if these separate structures are not mentioned at all in the warrant.” People v. Valle, 2015 IL App (2d) 131319, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 443 (June 11, 2015).
Plaintiff pulled off the road because he was lightheaded from a diabetic episode. When the police encountered him they thought he was under the influence and was combative. The force used to subdue him was reasonable under the circumstances. Schoettle v. Jefferson County, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9729 (8th Cir. June 11, 2015).*
The Franks claim was that the officer never talked to the CI who proffered information about defendant’s lavish lifestyle, indicative of a lucrative drug trade. Even removing some of that allegedly suspect information from the affidavit for the search warrant, there was probable cause. United States v. Sliwa, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75131 (D.Mass. June 10, 2015).*
Defendant’s stop was unlawfully extended without reasonable suspicion. In an area known for gang activity where there was a party attended by gang members known to be armed, officers surrounded defendant’s car on a parking lot where she hadn’t paid to park [yet], and inquired about firearms in the car. She denied having any, and refused to consent to a search of her locked glove compartment by denying she had the key. One officer pried the glove box open enough to see inside and see the butt of a gun, and she was arrested. State v. Kimmons, 271 Or. App. 592 (June 10, 2015).*
“Equipped with information about the crime, and seeing two young men who matched the description he had been given minutes earlier [of just one], in a location that roughly corresponded to the distance the perpetrators might have traveled by foot in the interim, Officer Anjos properly sought to speak with the two young men. At that time, he was sitting in a police cruiser, with no lights or siren activated and no weapon displayed, and his statement, ‘Hey guys, wait a minute,’ was not a stop.” It was, however, with reasonable suspicion, and defendant fled. Commonwealth v. Warren, 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 62 (June 10, 2015).*
With an untested and unknown informant, detail alone is not enough because detail can be made up, too. Thus, this affidavit lacks probable cause. Nevertheless, the good faith exception will sustain it. United States v. Martin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75030 (E.D.Tenn. March 25, 2015):
Continue reading
Defendant met in a police interrogation room with his lawyer, and the police turned off the recorder, but three listened in to the conversation through the wall. The superior officer actually self-reported the misconduct. Defendant moved to suppress what they overheard, and the officers took the Fifth. Then the defense moved to bar all of the officers’ testimony at trial. The state conceded a gun would be suppressed, but appealed suppression of the officers’ testimony. On the Fourth Amendment claim, what the officers learned before the misconduct of eavesdropping was admissible. The Fifth Amendment and confrontation claim would be assessed question by question. State v. Taylor, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 453 (June 10, 2015):
Continue reading
The Hill: House votes to further rein in NSA, in sign of continued momentum by Julian Hattem:
House lawmakers voted to further rein in the nation’s spies on Thursday, in a signal that legislators aren’t yet done reforming surveillance law.
A bipartisan amendment to add new limits to the National Security Agency (NSA) passed 255-174, slightly more than a week after President Obama signed legislation ending the agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records.
While the move appears largely symbolic, given the overwhelming opposition to further spy reforms from leadership in the Senate, it nonetheless makes clear that a significant bloc of lawmakers aren’t settling with that first batch of reforms, called the USA Freedom Act.
CHQ: Conservatism: A better future for American liberty, prosperity and security:
Two issues being hotly contested at the national level this year — government collection of private records as debated through the Patriot Act sunset provision, and the definition of marriage before the Supreme Court — distinguish conservatives from neocons and libertarians.
Those two issues also highlight why conservatism is the right blend of principles when it comes to the role of government, constitutional liberty, national defense, economic security and American exceptionalism.
. . .
We conservatives, on the other hand, take the Fourth Amendment more seriously, and believe that government may not obtain records of persons or businesses without a warrant signed by a neutral judge, and after a showing of probable cause that some law is violated.
You gave us the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, remember? No, you don’t. And don’t pee on my leg and say it’s raining.
