WPIX: NYPD arrests drone user after close call with police helicopter by Ayana Harry:
The New York Police Department says they grounded a helicopter in the middle of a missing person search in Brooklyn on September 17th after a drone was spotted close to the police aircraft. Officers tracked the drone to its owner, Isaac Rosa, 34 of Bushwick. Rosa was charged with reckless endangerment and obstructing government administration. Police say Rosa is due back in court in November.
WaPo: Jury awards $1.8 million to wrongly raided Denver family by Radley Balko:
Not for the mistaken raid, but for decision to prosecute family members afterward: two kids for assaulting an officer.
If Denver officials had simply left it at that, it’s unlikely that the Martinez family would have received any compensation at all. The jury in the family’s civil case didn’t find the raid itself to be abuse. It was the decision to prosecute the boys that was apparently too much. But the family won’t be collecting any time soon. The state plans to appeal. But at best, once again, the party that will be punished for the abuse of innocent people by police and prosecutors won’t be the police and prosecutors who committed the abuse, but Denver (and probably Colorado) taxpayers.
BLT: NSA Hearing in the D.C. Circuit Will Not Be Televised:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for he D.C. Circuit will not televise its Nov. 4 oral argument over the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records.
Courthouse News Service: US Defends Legality of NSA Spying That It Won’t Explain Further by Arvin Temkar:
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) – Even if there were evidence that a domestic spying program was unconstitutional, interference by the courts could cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security, the government told a federal judge.
Urging U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to deny the plaintiffs partial summary judgment and instead rule for the government, the Monday filing from the Department of Justice says that the National Security Administration’s information-collecting techniques do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The filing comes in the case Jewel v. NSA, a high-profile domestic spying case filed in 2008 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It stems from a 2006 revelation by a former AT&T technician that the company was routing copies of emails, Web browsing data and other Internet information to a secret NSA-controlled location in San Francisco.
On Point: Auditing America’s Police Force:
Police shootings, cop culture, body cameras. And the big debate over how to protect the public and the police.
Arguable probable cause for a warrantless arrest and then a valid search warrant gives qualified immunity to the officers involved. Ultimately the DA decided not to prosecute the plaintiffs, and it was a close case for prosecution. Roddy v. City of Huntsville, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18555 (11th Cir. September 29, 2014).* The first two paragraphs pretty much say it all:
In this appeal we consider whether the arrests of Dr. William Roddy and his wife and the search of their hotel room, pursuant to a search warrant, violated their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
The Roddys’ day was off to a bad start when a hotel employee called 911 after Dr. Roddy allegedly pulled his gun on another hotel guest. It got worse when officers searched Dr. Roddy and recovered a gun, nearly $3,900 in wadded-up cash, and controlled substances. And then a search of Room 1020 offered a treasure trove of pain pills and other drugs. Because the officers acted with arguable probable cause when they arrested Dr. Roddy and his wife and because Officer Jason Ramsey procured a valid search warrant before searching the Roddys’ hotel room, we conclude that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm the summary judgment against the Roddys.
LATimes: Governor vetoes bill that would have limited police use of drones by Phil Willon & Melanie Mason:
Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants to use drones for surveillance.
WaPo: Supreme Court fails frequently, professor writes by Robert Barnes:
After nearly four decades as a lawyer and 30 years teaching would-be lawyers, and after writing a leading textbook on constitutional law and helping establish a law school, and after standing before the justices five times on behalf of his clients, Erwin Chemerinsky has fallen out of love with the Supreme Court.
Hard.
His break-up note runs for 342 pages and is called “The Case Against the Supreme Court.” The book makes its regretful message clear at the very beginning:
“We should realize that this is an emperor that truly has no clothes. For too long, we have treated the Court is if they are the high priests of the law, or at least as if they are the smartest and best lawyers in society.”
The defense does not get an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress without at least a preliminary showing that some illegality occurred in the search and seizure at issue. Here, defendant can’t show that except by speculation or that the challenged illegality even mattered, and the motion is denied. United States v. Bonds, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136469 (W.D. Wash. September 26, 2014)*:
Defendants wishing to suppress evidence have the initial burden, first of proving with “specific evidence” that an unlawful search occurred, and second, that the evidence they wish to suppress under the exclusionary rule or fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is the product of the unlawful search or seizure. As part of this second showing, the defendant must at least “establish[] a factual nexus between the illegality and the challenged evidence.” United States v. Kandik, 633 F.2d 1334, 1335 (9th Cir. 1980). After this point, the burden “shifts to the government to show that it acquired its evidence from an independent source.” Cella, 568 F.2d at 1284-85. See also United States v. Polizzi, 500 F.2d 856, 910 (9th Cir. 1974).
Police and the fire department responded to a 911 call involving the unexplained death of a 25 year old woman. Once inside, they called the coroner, and then walked through to check for possible causes, finding in plain view cash, a list of drug debts, and other things suggesting drug trafficking. The entry and walk through was legal before a search warrant was sought. United States v. Rodriguez-Flores, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136410 (E.D. Ky. September 24, 2014):
Under the exigent circumstances exception, officers responding to medical emergencies may secure a scene for both safety and evidentiary concerns. See, e.g., Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (collecting cases); Stricker v. Township of Cambridge, 710 F.3d 350, 361-62 (6th Cir. 2013) (upholding a protective sweep as “objectively reasonable” by officers responding to a 911 call when they “turned the house upside down” as they searched for clues as to what the victim might have ingested to cause his overdose).
WaPo: A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina by Orin Kerr:
The first argued case in the new Supreme Court term will be Heien v. North Carolina, a Fourth Amendment case about whether a reasonable mistake of law can create cause for a Fourth Amendment search or seizure. I think the defendant has the better argument that the answer is “no.” In this post, I’ll explain the case and why I think the defense should prevail.
“Courts have been clear that police need not corroborate information given by known informants. Like the CI in Harris, the CI in this case was known to provide reliable information that led to arrests. Thus, police corroboration was unnecessary. But the police, as in Perkins, did confirm important aspects of the tip before stopping Defendant.” United States v. Chappell, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134820 (E.D. Va. September 23, 2014).*
The government has had defendant’s cell phone for two years and hasn’t gotten the password to open it, but has text messages [some how]. The government wants to show it to the jury whether it’s opened or not, so the motion to return is denied. United States v. Robles, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135876 (C.D. Cal. September 22, 2014).*
Defendant’s computer was with a computer technician for repair. The tech called the police describing search terms he found and the police didn’t think that qualified as child pornography. On his own, then, the tech searched the computer and found videos that he considered child porn, and he called the police again. They took possession of the computer and applied for a search warrant which was valid. The search of the videos wasn’t instigated by the police. United States v. Tapley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134800 (D. Me. September 24, 2014).*
Defendant’s cell phone was searched without a warrant, and Riley applies. Whether the later search warrant for the cell phone was valid via the independent source rule has inadequate findings, so the case is remanded for further findings. People v. Omwanda, 2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 1569 (September 25, 2014)*:
Continue reading
Legal advice rendered before the right to counsel attaches with the initiation of adversarial proceedings cannot be the basis for an IAC claim. Ryan v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135932 (W.D. Wis. September 19, 2014):
Petitioner’s withdrawal of all but two of his claims leaves him with no basis for relief, for two reasons. First, the allegedly ineffective advice given him when he was arrested cannot support a claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective because the constitutional right to counsel does not attach until the initiation of adversarial criminal proceedings. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972). When petitioner’s counsel advised him to cooperate with law enforcement, no adversarial criminal proceedings had been initiated.
Second, petitioner cannot show that his counsel was ineffective in not moving to suppress the marijuana seized from his plane unless he can show that the investigatory stop and subsequent search of his plane were illegal. He has not made that showing or argued that he needs to have an evidentiary hearing to adduce the evidence to support his claim.
The record evidence is more than sufficient to show that his counsel would have had no ground on which to move to suppress the marijuana seized from the plane.
Officers discovered that the address in the search warrant was incorrect before the warrant issued, and the USMJ corrected it on the warrant. The failure to record that conversation while a Rule 41 violation and not a Fourth Amendment violation does not lead to suppression. Moreover, it is all in good faith. United States v. Skarda, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134654 (D. N.D. September 19, 2014).
After the Sandusky/Penn State matter, four men wrote to defendant, who worked in a school, to confront him with allegations that they were abused by him when they were children. That led to at least one meeting. Some went to the police. A search warrant was obtained for defendant’s computer, cell phone, and car for evidence of witness intimidation from emails, text messages, and other written communications. There was a factual basis shown to issue the search warrants, and child pornography was found. State v. Wheeler, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 476 (September 18, 2014).*
All the conditions in the department’s SOP for vehicle impounds were met, so the inventory was valid. United States v. Vladeff, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134664 (M.D. Fla. September 24, 2014).*
NYTImes: Today’s Police Put on a Gun and a Camera by Kirk Johnson:
PULLMAN, Wash. — Amateur videos of police officers doing their jobs have become part of the fabric of urban democracy, with embarrassing or violent images spreading via social media in minutes.
But more police agencies, especially after the unrest following an unarmed teenager’s shooting in Ferguson, Mo., are recording events with small body-mounted cameras.
In just the last few weeks, law enforcement agencies in at least a dozen cities, including Ferguson; Flagstaff, Ariz.; Minneapolis; Norfolk, Va.; and Washington, have said they are equipping officers with video cameras. Miami Beach approved the purchase of $3 million worth of cameras for police officers, parking enforcement workers, and building and fire inspectors.
Two officers walked up on an already parked vehicle, one on each side. The officer testified that he’d be “pretty upset” if the defendant drove off, but he was actually free to leave. Therefore, it was not a stop, and a reasonable person would not think that officers on both sides of his car was a “stop.” State v. Helmick, 2014-Ohio-4187, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4100 (9th Dist. September 24, 2014).* [Yeah, right: free to just drive off. These days you might get shot doing that. This is fiction masquerading as a judicial opinion.]
Defendant was with his girlfriend in her car at a gas pump and her ex showed up and an argument ensued. They claimed the ex had a gun. His car was searched and none was found. The ex said that they had the gun, and their car was searched finding one. Defendant was charged with FIPF, and he didn’t show standing in her car to challenge the search. State v. Simmons, 2014-Ohio-4191, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4106 (9th Dist. September 24, 2014).*
Defendant was stopped for no front LP and an unlighted rear LP. The officer got him out of the car and ran his DL, and then asked if he could run a drug dog around the car, which alerted. This all occurred in 8 minutes and was reasonable. State v. White, 2014-Ohio-4202, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4113 (8th Dist. September 25, 2014).*
Slate: Australia on the Verge of Permitting Alarmingly Broad Internet Surveillance by Emily Tamkin:
On Thursday, the Australian Senate passed a bill that would increase the powers of domestic spy agency ASIO, giving it the ability to monitor all of the Australian Internet with a single warrant. It could also send anyone who “recklessly” discloses information that “relates to a special intelligence operation” to jail for up to 10 years. (Any operation can be considered special.) The bill is expected to pass the House, where it will be up for a vote on Tuesday at the earliest.
The bill has been met with harsh criticism from many, including attorneys and academics. But the government is presenting it as a shift toward security. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott warned citizens that “for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift. There may be more restrictions on some, so that there can be more protection for others.” The legislation comes in response to recent terror threats.
See too: NYTimes: Opinion: A Bad Antiterrorism Bill (France):
The French Parliament overwhelmingly approved a sweeping new antiterrorism bill last week that raises serious questions about balancing civil liberties against the need to stop the flow of citizens to the jihadist fight being waged in Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State. The bill was presented to Parliament last Monday, and there was no opportunity for lawmakers to fully debate the provisions, which alarm civil liberties groups and legal authorities.
