EFF: Secure Our Borders First Act Would Ensure Proliferation of Drones at the Border BY Nadia Kayyali:
The Secure Our Borders First Act is an ugly piece of legislation that’s clearly intended to strongarm the Department of Homeland Security into dealing with the border in a very particular way-with drones and other surveillance technology.
Politico: Administration highlights surveillance reforms by Josh Gerstein:
With legislation to overhaul a key surveillance program stalled on Capitol Hill, the Obama Administration issued a report Tuesday highlighting reforms it has made to the nation’s snooping efforts since Edward Snowden jump-started public debate on the issue with a series of unauthorized revelations more than a year ago.
SC Magazine: Act would require gov’t to get warrant for electronic content, geolocation data by Teri Robinson:
A bipartisan trio of legislators reintroduced the Online Communication and Geolocation Protection Act to extend Fourth Amendment rights to electronic communications.
A bipartisan effort in the House has resurrected a bill that would require government agencies to obtain a search warrant — after showing probable cause — before intercepting electronic communications such as email and geolocation information or compelling disclosure of that data.
It’s a bill, not an “Act” yet.
Watchdog.org: ‘Sneak and peek’ bill rolls quietly through [Virginia] General Assembly by Kenric Ward:
State Sen. Jennifer Wexton wants to endow Virginia law-enforcement agencies with Patriot Act powers
RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia lawmakers want to give local and state authorities the same sweeping search-and-seizure powers used by the FBI and other federal agencies under the Patriot Act.
Senate Bill 919, by state Sen. Jennifer Wexton, D-Leesburg, passed 39-1 last month. A similar measure, House Bill 1946 by Delegate Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, awaits action.
The bills allow for “administrative subpoenas,” or what Virginia civil libertarian John Whitehead calls “sneak-and-peek searches.”
Defendant was driving on a suspended license the truck of a man known to be dead. The search of the truck was clearly illegal, but inevitable discovery applied because it would have been impounded and inventoried. United States v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1594 (11th Cir. February 2, 2015).
The court credits the testimony of the officers and photographs from the scene of the search that the car door was open to see a gun in plain view. United States v. Duncan, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10993 (W.D.Okla. January 30, 2015).*
The police used a drug dog to sniff defendant’s apartment door at 3:20 am. That led to a search warrant and a search of the apartment. Then Jardines was decided, and defendant moved to suppress which was granted. The court of appeals affirmed because Jardines deals with the “home,” and it isn’t limited to a “house.” The state’s effort to use the Davis good faith exception is rejected because there was no binding authority saying it was lawful. People v. Burns, 2015 IL App (4th) 140006, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 62 (January 30, 2015):
Continue reading
The search of the juvenile defendant’s backpack was illegal under the Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution, but the state backdoored the evidence by calling a snitch to identify it. This was part of the fruit of the poisonous tree and not an independent source. N.S. v. State, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 39 (January 28, 2015):
Continue reading
An administrative stop of a tractor trailer for an NAS level III safety inspection with the dual motive of looking for drugs is valid. United States v. Orozco, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10190 (D.Nev. January 28, 2015):
Continue reading
WaPo: Eyewitnesses aren’t as reliable as you might think by Thomas Albright and Jed Rakoff:
Thomas Albright is a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Jed Rakoff is a federal district judge in the Southern District of New York.
Over the past quarter-century, more than 1,400 people convicted of serious crimes have been proved innocent, according to the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations. But why were these people wrongly convicted? In a great many cases, one significant factor was faulty eyewitness identifications.
Eyewitness testimony can be extremely powerful. When a witness with no motive to lie swears under oath that he or she personally saw a defendant commit a crime, it is hard not to believe the testimony. But in recent decades, extensive scientific research — which we reviewed while co-chairing the National Research Council committee that wrote the recent report “Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification” — have identified a number of factors that can lead an eyewitness to make a mistake. It is time our legal system started making use of this knowledge.
Because state law said it was proper at the time, Davis good faith applies to a warrantless blood draw “problematic” under McNeely. People v. Barry, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 95 (January 29, 2015):
Continue reading
On the Media: Too Little, Too Late, Hosted by Brooke Gladstone, Guest: Ed Pilkington:
On Christmas Eve, Google informed WikiLeaks that personal information for three of its employees had been handed over to the Department of Justice over three years ago, with no notice until now. The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington talks to Brooke about this most recent clash between government authority and online privacy.
Officers came to defendant’s house to do a knock-and-talk based on reports he was growing marijuana. The front door was covered in plastic and appeared to have furniture blocking it, so they went to the nearest door, on the side of the house on the driveway. From there, they could see marijuana plants visible in the back yard. The officers did not violate the curtilage. State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753, 767 S.E.2d 312 (2015), reversing 735 S.E.2d 354 (N.C. App. 2012).
13 minutes does not make a stop overlong, particularly when there is “reasonable suspicion from the outset.” State v. Morris, 2015 S.C. LEXIS 49 (January 28, 2015).*
The officer here responded to a shooting call, and, at the scene, found defendant hiding in the bushes, and it was apparent something was hidden in his pants. He patted defendant down, who objected to a “search,” but the officer said it was a patdown not a search. In his pants, a short barreled modified AK-47 to fire .22 rounds was found. The patdown was on more than a hunch and was valid. United States v. Torres, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181411 (N.D.Iowa December 23, 2014).*
The search of defendant’s car can’t be justified as a parole search when the officer was unaware of parole status at the time of the search. State v. Donaldson, 2015 Md. App. LEXIS 3 (January 28, 2015):
None of the cases cited by the State addressed a search that was conducted at a time when the police officer had no knowledge that the suspect was on parole. Consequently, even though Feaster, Knights, and Samson all address the quantum of suspicion necessary to conduct a lawful search of a known parolee, those cases do not hold that an otherwise unconstitutional search is authorized and beyond challenge on a motion to suppress if the police discover after the arrest that the suspect was on parole. It appears that no appellate opinion in Maryland has addressed that precise issue.
A handful of courts in other jurisdictions have addressed similar issues in analogous situations, and all have concluded that the reasonableness of a search must be viewed from the officer’s perspective at the time of the search, and therefore, an illegal search cannot be justified based on information discovered after the fact. These cases are consistent with the rule that, generally, the propriety of an arrest is to be analyzed based upon the facts known at the time of the arrest ….
In a rare § 2254 reversal, the Sixth Circuit finds defense counsel ineffective for not pursuing a clearly winnable Fourth Amendment claim, and the state court findings were unreasonable under AEDPA. Grumbley v. Burt, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1429 (6th Cir. January 27, 2015):
We turn now to the question of whether the state court unreasonably applied Strickland in finding that Grumbley’s trial counsel was constitutionally effective despite his failure to move to suppress the physical evidence obtained from the search of Grumbley’s home. We find that Grumbley has met his burden under the doubly deferential standards of AEDPA and Strickland.
Continue reading
Defendant’s cell phone was searched in 2010, well before Riley, but a motion to suppress was filed and denied pre-Riley. The state concedes on appeal that Riley controls and attempts to get the contents of the phone in under exigent circumstances, but it can’t show any. State v. Lacey, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 43 (January 28, 2015).
The drugs and paraphernalia in defendant’s car were in plain view when the officer walked up to the car in a high crime area and looked in. State v. Hill, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 93 (La.App. 5 Cir. January 28, 2015).*
Defendant’s traffic stop was based on no headlights and failure to use a turn signal. When the officer got to the car he could smell burnt marijuana and saw a joint in the car. A search of the car was then justified. State v. Watson, 2015-Ohio-283, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 245 (9th Dist. January 28, 2015).*
