The officer had probable cause for defendant’s arrest, but it wasn’t any longer hot pursuit because the officer directed his attention elsewhere. The entry into defendant’s house could not be justified by hot pursuit. State v. Lowe, 2015-Ohio-1064, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1036 (11th Dist. March 23, 2015).
Seizure of animals was a provisional remedy not yet appealable under Ohio law. State v. Beck, 2015-Ohio-1069, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1020 (11th Dist. March 23, 2015).*
Defendant’s argument that his blood draw was done by an “unauthorized person,” a registered nurse for 52 years who was an “authorized person” was meritless. State v. Waldock, 2015-Ohio-1079, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 994 (3d Dist. March 23, 2015).*
Defendant made his fifth short trip from Puerto Rico to Colombia in a few months, and he was flagged for secondary border screening. His older but operational laptop had no data on it. Questions about his trip made no real sense, and he lied about the source of money for his plane ticket. The border search of his computer and cell phones was reasonable. Drugs were hidden in the computer. United States v. Molina-Gómez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4611 (1st Cir. March 20, 2015).
Defendant accosted a UPS driver to take a box without a label to ship it immediately. He sent him to a UPS store. The driver saw the box there and alerted supervisors who opened it for UPS “safety” and it was full of cash and going to Yuma, AZ. It was ultimately delivered. UPS was on the lookout. A couple of days later a package was coming back to defendant in Iowa from Yuma. It was separated for a few hours for a dog sniff which led to a search warrant for anticipatory delivery because the box contained drugs. UPS was not a government actor, and the brief detention of the package was reasonable. United States v. Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4703 (8th Cir. March 23, 2015).*
“On appeal, Wiggins contends that the search warrant was invalid because the supporting affidavit—which relied solely on an uncorroborated tip from an anonymous informant [he was moving 50 pds a week], Wiggins’s possession of a personal-use amount of marijuana, and a statement from an acquaintance of Wiggins that she had smoked marijuana at his home numerous times—did not give rise to sufficient probable cause to suggest that he was running a drug-distribution operation out of his home. We agree.” Wiggins v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 179 (March 23, 2015). Continue reading →
Posted inInformant hearsay|Comments Off on GA: Anonymous informant not corroborated by misd possession of small amount of pot and a gun
In a traffic stop, the passenger fled for no apparent reason. The backpack he left behind was abandoned property. Officers waited for his return before searching it. United States v. Nowak, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35351 (D.S.D. March 19, 2015), R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35355 (D.S.D. January 9, 2015).
The search of drug probationer’s house and a safe inside was proper as a probation search. The fact police officers were there did not make it a law enforcement search. People v. Adams, 2015 NY Slip Op 02355, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2366 (4th Dept. March 20, 2015).
Defendant was accused of enticement of a child by cell phone communication. The girl’s mother saw the messages and called the police, and they imitated the girl. When defendant showed up for a meeting, they had probable cause to believe that there was evidence on the phone. Smith v. State, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 301 (March 20, 2015).*
As Tyrone Lyles lay dying from a gunshot wound on an East Oakland street in 2007, he let out a few last words that would ultimately help authorities convict his killer. ‘Why you done me like that, Ar?’ he pleaded. ‘Ar, why you do me like that, dude?’ The exchange, which was used in court, was recorded by ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system that has been installed in over 90 cities across the country. By placing a series of microphones around high-crime neighborhoods, the system is able to pinpoint the location of where a gunshot took place with surprising accuracy, leading to faster response times from police.
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on Fusion: Is NYC’s new gunshot detection system recording private conversations?
In a regulatory inspection, “An order not to leave the business premises for two hours can reasonably be understood to constitute a detention as well as a seizure. Although the inspection was conducted according to regulatory authority, the statutory provision put forth by the Defendants does not expressly authorize inspectors to detain persons on the premises during inspections. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim of false imprisonment against Defendant Stockstill.” The plaintiffs stated a claim. Nguyen v. La. State Bd. of Cosmetology, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35214 (M.D.La. March 20, 2015).
When defendant refused a breath test for BAC, the officer could apply for a search warrant. Massey v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 170 (March 20, 2015).*
Police observed the buy from defendant’s house. A 72 hour wait to get the search warrant didn’t make it stale. State v. Evans, 2015-Ohio-1022, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 969 (8th Dist. March 19, 2015).*
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest, Staleness|Comments Off on M.D.La.: Telling employees they couldn’t leave during a regulatory inspection was a seizure of their person
A frisk for weapons is limited; the video here shows a search for drugs with officers digging in his pockets. The search wasn’t for weapons, and his consent was invalid. State v. Debrossard, 2015-Ohio-1054, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 989 (4th Dist. March 18, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inStop and frisk|Comments Off on OH4: A frisk for weapons is limited; the video here shows a search for drugs with officers digging in his pockets
Odor of alcohol alone is not probable cause. “Trooper Johnson simply was not asked about any physical observations that he made of Appellant’s eyes, speech, or movement; nor was he asked what effect, if any, these observations may have had on his decision to arrest Appellant. Trooper Johnson’s affirmative response to the question from Appellant’s trial counsel about the odor of alcohol indicates that it was a factor he relied upon in making the decision to arrest Appellant.6 However, the record is silent as to what other factors Trooper Johnson may have relied upon in making the decision to arrest.” Clement v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2650 (Tex. App. – Eastland March 20, 2015), reh den. 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4801 (Tex. App. – Eastland May 7, 2015).
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a key removed from him since they police had a search warrant to enter, key or not. Burnett v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34623 (S.D.N.Y. February 13, 2015).*
Defendant’s obstructing a peace officer conviction had to be reversed because, while an officer could initially enter defendant’s porch, once he found no evidence of a crime, staying there was an unauthorized act which defendant could lawfully obstruct. People v. Jones, 2015 IL App (2d) 130387, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 176 (March 17, 2015).
Defendant was arrested for drugs, and that justified a search of his backpack in the car. In the backpack were medical records in a notebook. The officer leafed through the notebook looking for drugs, so he said, and the trial court credited that. In the notebook, multiple names and social security numbers were found, and that led to defendant being charged with aggravated identity theft and wire fraud. The numbers were in “plain view” considering the looking at the notebook was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Reeves, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4339 (11th Cir. March 18, 2015).
Posted inCurtilage, Plain view, feel, smell, Search incident|Comments Off on IL: Officer staying on porch after completion of business was unauthorized, and def couldn’t be conviction of obstruction after that
The fact police used cell phone tracking information, even if it was illegal, a question not decided, to find defendant didn’t void the search of his person because they clearly had probable cause for his detention and search. (This was raised as an IAC issue.) People v. Balfour, 2015 IL App (1st) 122325, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 179 (March 18, 2015).
The encounter with defendant was not a stop. His van had been seen driving erratically, and the officers had to turn around and go back to him. When they found it, it was parked. They walked up and defendant was lying sideways across the seats claiming he was asleep. The officers asked him to get out and a partial FST was done before he quit, and that resulted in defendant being arrested for DUI. The encounter was found to be consensual. Rutledge v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 159 (March 19, 2015).*
Difficult issues of police policy and humane concern confront officers when they attempt to subdue a mentally disabled person whom they know is armed and has made threats. Aside from immediate safety issues, both for themselves and the person whom they are attempting to subdue, the officers confront potential legal risks under the federal disability rights law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and under the Constitution.
Those challenges come together before the Supreme Court in a case growing out of a violent incident about seven years ago in a San Francisco group home for mentally disabled individuals. Teresa Sheehan, one of the residents there, was shot five or six times, but survived and then sued the officers involved. The case raises issues under both the ADA and the Fourth Amendment.
Posted inSCOTUS|Comments Off on SCOTUSBlog: Argument preview: Police and disability rights
The Department of Justice recently edged closer to a rule change that would allow the FBI to track suspected criminals’ computer activity more easily. The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules voted last week in favor of an update to Rule 41, which dictates how judges can issue search warrants on electronic devices, Government Executive reported. The new rule 41 would let judges OK warrants to examine computers remotely anywhere as opposed to only those in their districts. The FBI would also no longer would be required to give users notice ahead of its searches.
Posted inComputer and cloud searches|Comments Off on Int’t Business Times: Rule 41 Change Could Allow FBI To Get Warrants To Remotely Search Suspects’ Computers Without Notice
Once the officer gives back the license and ticket, continued questioning unreasonably prolongs the stop. Duncan v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 134 (March 18, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inReasonable suspicion|Comments Off on GA: Once the officer gives back the license and ticket, continued questioning unreasonably prolongs the stop
After defendant lawyered up, asking him for his cell phone password violated the Sixth Amendment, and the statement giving the password must be suppressed. United States v. Bondo, 2015 CCA LEXIS 89 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. March 18, 2015) (unpublished): Continue reading →
Posted inArrest or entry on arrest|Comments Off on A.F. Ct.Crim.App.: After defendant lawyered up, asking him for his cell phone password violated the Sixth Amendment
Defendant’s consent to a DNA test for a paternity test for impregnating a 12 year old didn’t preclude using the evidence in a criminal investigation for having sex with her. Defendant had to know that was possible. Andrews v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 147 (March 19, 2015).
“This Court previously ruled that there was probable cause to arrest Jimenez when he arrived at 1830 Fisher Road. (Docket #69). The same facts show there was probable cause to search” his car and truck. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in calls under the marital privilege to his wife from jail. United States v. Jimenez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34916 (W.D.Ky. March 20, 2015).
Defendants were not in custody when they were questioned by NASA’s IG after a raid. The questioning was in their homes and was reasonable in length. They weren’t arrested. Their consent to search was also valid. United States v. Aldissi, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34288 (M.D.Fla. March 19, 2015),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37967 (M.D.Fla. January 14, 2015).*
Use of a SWAT team to execute a document search warrant was not so unreasonable that it made the entire search unreasonable. Also, the alleged overseizure of records was not clearly unreasonable. Mountain Pure LLC v. Roberts, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34332 (E.D.Ark. March 19, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inExcessive force, Particularity|Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: Use of a SWAT team to execute a document search warrant was not so unreasonable that it made the entire search unreasonable
On the face of the papers, the motion to suppress and the government’s response, defendant doesn’t show an issue for an evidentiary hearing. Denial of a suppression hearing is governed by the abuse of discretion standard, and there was no abuse here. United States v. Guerra, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4438 (5th Cir. March 19, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inMotion to suppress|Comments Off on CA5: Suppression hearing not required when def doesn’t make a showing for one
When the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that affixing GPS devices to vehicles to track their every move without court warrants was an unconstitutional trespass, the outcome was seen as one of the biggest high court decisions in the digital age.
That precedent, which paved the way for the disabling of thousands of GPS devices clandestinely tacked onto vehicles by the authorities, is now being invoked to question the involuntary placement of GPS devices onto human beings.
The Supreme Court was considering that issue at its private conference Friday, and could announce as early as Monday whether it will review a petition from a 36-year-old North Carolina sex offender. After serving three years for “indecent liberties with a child,” Torrey Grady was ordered to wear a GPS anklet for life, an order that came down in 2013, four years after his 2009 prison release.
Posted inGPS / Tracking Data|Comments Off on Ars Technica: Is a lifetime of involuntary GPS monitoring constitutional?
The next time you walk across the Mexican border, an agent might ask to scan your face. In a pilot program rolling out this spring and summer, Customs and Border Protection will be testing biometric technology at the Otay Mesa pedestrian crossing. Face and iris scanning kiosks will capture biometric data on non-U.S. citizens walking across the border.
Posted inSurveillance technology|Comments Off on KPBS: Border Agency Brings Face Scanning To Otay Mesa
Tasering plaintiff’s ward twice for 5 and 21 seconds violated clearly established law and created an unnecessary risk of the brain injury he suffered. It was clear to the officer that applying a Taser for 15 seconds or more was highly dangerous. Qualified immunity denied. Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4417 (6th Cir. March 19, 2015): Continue reading →
Posted inExcessive force, Qualified immunity|Comments Off on CA6: Prolonged Tasering known to be excessive force that causes brain injury
"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.
