Wired: NY Cops Used ‘Stingray’ Spy Tool 46 Times Without Warrant by Kin Zetter:
The police department in Erie County, New York fought hard to prevent the New York Civil Liberties Union from obtaining records about its use of a controversial surveillance tool known as a stingray.
The Atlantic: Seattle’s Radical Approach to Drug Crimes Is Working:
New research shows the city’s experimental Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program, or LEAD, has helped dramatically reduce recidivism among participants.
WaPo: North Charleston police to wear body cameras by Wesley Lowery and Mark Berman:
City officials here promised to outfit the entire police department with body cameras Wednesday, seeking to defuse tension over a graphic video showing a white officer fatally shooting an unarmed black man in the back.
Defendant robbed a Denver bank on a Saturday wearing a beekeeper’s gear and mask, so nobody got a look at him. In the stolen money was a GPS tracker effective to a 60′ radius. Police tracked it to an intersection, and the first officer on the scene barricaded the intersection to stop all traffic on that side. Other officers arrived, and they made a split second decision to stop 20 cars at the intersection with 29 occupants. Everybody had their hands up. They sought an FBI tracking device effective to 10′, but it was late arriving. Ultimately, the occupants of 17 cars were handcuffed. The tracking beacon finally got there and pinpointed defendant’s car, and money wrappers were found inside. After a three day suppression hearing, on the whole, the stop and search was reasonable under Edmond, considering the nature of the crime and the need for immediate action. [Remarkably, defendant got only 2 months for the bank robbery, but 84 months for brandishing the gun. He should have been thankful.] United States v. Paetsch, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5624 (10th Cir. April 8, 2015):
Continue reading
“In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether there is probable cause to make a traffic stop for a suspected violation of law in accordance with article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution if the justification for the stop is based upon a police officer’s objectively reasonable, but mistaken, view of the law. We conclude that where, as here, the officer’s mistake about the law is reasonable, the stop is constitutional.” People v. Guthrie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02867, 2015 N.Y. LEXIS 747 (April 7, 2015).
The court does not accept defendant’s argument that he simply did not understand that he was subject to suspicionless parole searches under Tennessee law or that consent is even an argument. It doesn’t matter that the parole officer had an informant that said that defendant had drugs in the house and the parole officer hadn’t used search warrants in the past. The magnitude of the search was also reasonable: the officers presented his parole certificate, went straight to his bedroom and smelled marijuana and found a gun, and they took a key from him and unlocked a safe finding more. That was all entirely reasonable. United States v. Massengill, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45881 (E.D. Tenn. February 27, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45605 (E.D.Tenn. April 8, 2015).*
Defendant’s motion for appointment of new counsel because defense counsel refused to file a motion to suppress is denied. The motion was patently frivolous. Defendant was detained by Home Depot employees for shoplifting, and they removed a gun from him. That does not implicate the Fourth Amendment. [Even so, it would be valid as a search incident.] United States v. Cooper, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45524 (S.D. Ga. April 7, 2015):
Continue reading
CA7 combines three cases to explain in detail supervised release conditions, including search conditions on reasonable suspicion. One defendant posited a 3 am home check for child pornography on his computer or a Javert-like obsessive PO. United States v. Kappes, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5678 (7th Cir. April 8, 2015):
Continue reading
Even if the cell site location data for defendant’s phone was unreasonably obtained, it showed only that his phone was in the area of the crime not him, and he attempted to rebut it by claiming that his truck was stolen with the phone inside. On the rest of the evidence, however, the number of eyewitnesses showing that defendant was involved and was the owner of the truck made it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Smith, 2015 Conn. App. LEXIS 134 (April 14, 2015).
The officer thought defendant was under the influence of drugs and that was reasonable suspicion he was carrying drugs in the car. Yet, he never did a FST. There was no reasonable suspicion defendant was hauling drugs, and the detention was unreasonably long. State v. Selvy, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 382 (April 7, 2015).*
The search warrant to seize defendant’s cell phone, fairly read, permitted a search of the phone for photographs of defendant’s sexual battery of the victim. Moore v. State, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 182 (April 7, 2015).
The invalidity of the arrest warrant was not developed and wasn’t in the record, so it can’t be decided. Voluntariness of consent was also waived because it wasn’t developed in the trial court, and all that’s in the record supports consent. A warrant wasn’t required to open a white pouch found in the motel room because of the consent. O’Donnell v. State, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 180 (April 7, 2015).*
Officers had word from a witness that defendant accosted him with a gun which was in the right pants pocket. Officers went looking for defendant and found him, matching the description given. When the officers asked about a gun, defendant reached for his right pocket, and a patdown was permitted. State v. Strong, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 381 (April 7, 2015).*
The officer goes to the front door to do a knock-and-talk about methamphetamine production and the front window was open and the TV was on “really loud.” When nobody answered the door, it was reasonable to go to the back door because it was a reasonable conclusion that somebody was home. On the patio, residue of meth was seen in a Mountain Dew bottle, and that was reasonably obtained as in plain view. State v. Young, 2015-Ohio-1347, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1302 (12th Dist. April 6, 2015). [Moral to the story: Want to protect the curtilage, answer the front door when you’re home.]
The parole search of defendant’s property and property he apparently controlled was valid. He attempted to show he didn’t control the other property, but that would only defeat his standing. The actual facts for the merits would be whether he was in control to prove possession. United States v. Bohn, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45146 (N.D.Ind. April 7, 2015).
USA Today: U.S. secretly tracked billions of calls for decades by Brian Heath:
The U.S. government started keeping secret records of Americans’ international telephone calls nearly a decade before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, harvesting billions of calls in a program that provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance that followed.
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment 1983 claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey. He also did nothing to controvert the probable cause affidavit of the police. Lemmons v. Clymer, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5484 (10th Cir. April 6, 2015).*
Defendant’s argument that the officers couldn’t possibly have been able to smell marijuana coming from his car while standing three feet away is rejected as a credibility question he lost. United States v. Clark, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5449 (11th Cir. April 6, 2015).*
Crossing the fog line a couple of times isn’t per se unsafe driving, and, without more, it’s not enough for a stop. State v. Jones, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 732 (April 6, 2015).*
Des Moines Register: Iowa forfeiture: A ‘system of legal thievery’? by Jason Clayworth and Grant Rodgers:
A Des Moines Register investigation into the use of state and federal civil forfeiture laws in Iowa reveals that thousands of people have surrendered their cash or property since 2009. The system is stacked against property owners while raising millions of dollars annually for law enforcement agencies across the state, something critics contend encourages policing for profit over promoting public safety.
Where Texas case law is clear on the issue that using a signal only applies to turns and not lane changes, it was unreasonable for the officer to rely on that statute here for a lane change, and Heien on reasonable mistake of law doesn’t apply. United States v. Alvarado-Zarza, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5499 (5th Cir. April 6, 2015).
In executing a drug warrant at a house, the police smelled marijuana coming from a car found there, and then saw in it an AR-15 in plain view. That justified a warrantless search of the car [and the court doesn’t even discuss the fact that a warrant for a house includes vehicles on the curtilage associated with the house]. United States v. Avant, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44528 (E.D. Mich. April 6, 2015).*
Defendant’s stop for not having wide enough fenders on her pickup truck was reasonable suspicion. State v. Edwards, 2015 Ida. App. LEXIS 23 (April 6, 2015).*
Distinguishing between a mere accosting of persons in a parked car and a stop, the court finds this was a detention governed by the Fourth Amendment and without reasonable suspicion. There was a call at 12:11 am about “drug activity” in a neighborhood, and the officer encountered a parked car with occupants doing nothing in particular. The “accosting” turned into a detention governed by the Fourth Amendment but without reasonable suspicioin, and the resulting search was suppressed. Pyon v. State, 2015 Md. App. LEXIS 50 (April 6, 2015).* Classic Moylan if you want a painstaking breakdown of the accosting evolving to a stop. This is just the last two paragraphs:
Continue reading
Nexus can exist for fraud in business records and defendant’s home to look for records:
United States v. Gardner, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44647 (D.Minn. March 19, 2015). “The Hunt Affidavit describes a ‘builder buyout” scheme where a builder can sell excess homes to pay off its financial obligations to its construction lender; this scheme involved the surreptitious routing of money from the seller (builder) to the buyer. The participants provided the buyer an amount greater than the down payment so that the buyer immediately profited anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000 per transaction.” In any event, the good faith exception applies.
United States v. Schleining, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44536 (N.D.Ill. April 6, 2015). Wire fraud of diverting premiums for employees. The company was a USPS contractor that folded and there were fuel overcharges that helped put them out of business. The investigation of that led to a search warrant for records.
The Hill: Lawmakers in cybersecurity rush by Cory Bennett:
Lawmakers are rushing to pass a major cybersecurity bill this month before a divisive debate over reauthorizing the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs bogs them down.
Lawmakers have maintained that their cyber efforts — which would provide legal protections to companies that share cyber data with the government — have nothing to do with surveillance.
