When a motion to suppress is denied as to one defendant, the law of the case doctrine applies and requires it be denied as to others [except possibly where it was on standing or something like that]. United States v. Chidester, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68282 (N.D. W.Va. April 29, 2014).
Defendant’s adult son lived with her and was on probation. Probation officers did a probation search and found evidence of defendant’s drug use. They applied for a search warrant and returned and searched her purse. The purse was within the scope of the search warrant for “all personal property” and could be searched. People v. Webb, 2014 CO 36, 2014 Colo. LEXIS 361 (May 19, 2014).*
Defendant’s stop for speeding was objectively reasonable and pretext doesn’t matter. United States v. Davis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69170 (D. Nev. April 30, 2014).*
Defendant was hiding in his grandmother’s house with a 13 year old runaway. Her free will to consent was not overborne by an appeal to her emotion that she’d be in trouble only if she knew the girl was in the house, because that was true. United States v. Anderson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9359 (5th Cir. May 20, 2014):
Warrantless searches are not considered per se unreasonable when the search is conducted pursuant to consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973). Whether the consent was voluntary is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 227. Defendant challenges the voluntariness of Anderson’s consent, arguing that the police procedures were coercive because May threatened to arrest Anderson if she refused consent. However, the district court found that May told Anderson she would be arrested only if she knew Doe was in her house; the district court also explicitly rejected Anderson’s testimony that May threatened to arrest her regardless of her knowledge. There was no clear error in the district court’s determination since it was a plausible credibility determination in light of the evidence. See Jacquinot, 258 F.3d at 427. Furthermore, the evidence supports the district court’s determination that Anderson’s will was not overborne by May’s statement that she could be arrested if she was knowingly concealing Doe because Anderson continued to refuse consent until May appealed to her emotions. Because there is no clear error, we affirm the district court’s finding that Anderson’s consent was voluntary. See id.
Posted inConsent|Comments Off on CA5: Consent not overborne by appeal to emotion that consenter would be in trouble only if certain facts were true
Throwing a bag over a fence to hide it from the police was not an abandonment. United States v. Curran, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68634 (M.D. Pa. May 19, 2014):
Although Defendant obviously endeavored to hide the bags from police, his actions do not manifest clear and unequivocal evidence of intent to abandon the bags. This case is unlike other abandonment cases in which the defendant drops a bag in a location and leaves the vicinity, or claims the item does not belong to him/her. See, e.g., Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S. Ct. 683, 4 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1960) (items found in trash can of hotel room had been abandoned by the defendant); Thomas, 864 F.2d at 846 (defendant abandoned gym bag by leaving it on the second floor of an apartment building and then leaving the premises); United States v. Fulani, 368 F.3d 351, 354 (3d Cir. 2004) (defendant abandoned bag by claiming that it did not belong to him); United States v. Perkins, 871 F. Supp. 801 (M.D. Pa. 1995) (defendant abandoned bag by leaving it on a bus and failing to return to claim it). Regardless of Defendant’s purported reason for tossing the bags over the fence, it is clear that he planned to retrieve the bags and take them to his vehicle, but was apprehended by the police in the process. Thus, the bags were not abandoned.
Posted inAbandonment|Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Throwing a bag over a fence to hide it from the police was not an abandonment
Defendant’s consent to search his rental car extended the length of the stop, so the use of a drug dog didn’t. United States v. Chin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67388 (E.D. Tenn. May 16, 2014), R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68465 (E.D. Tenn. March 25, 2014).
Defendant’s valid stop for DUI was made on the collective knowledge of the officer who stopped him and the one reporting to that officer. State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144, 2014 Neb. LEXIS 77 (May 16, 2014).*
Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the public right of way when defendant was encountered and found DUI. That was probable cause for arrest because it wasn’t private property not open to the public. State v. Matit, 288 Neb. 163, 2014 Neb. LEXIS 75 (May 16, 2014).*
Posted inConsent, Probable cause|Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Consent to search car extended the time of the stop for the drug dog
The police executed a search warrant for computers for child pornography. After they left the house, defendant’s grandfather called them to say that there was another computer in a closet that was not seized. He consented to that seizure. The court concludes that the original search warrant covered the second computer in the house but seized by consent later. United States v. Keith, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67968 (D. Mass. May 13, 2014).
Reasonable suspicion for an encounter of a stopped car in a motel parking lot in a high crime area existed. The police were generally watching for prostitution, and people sitting in the car in a motel parking lot, not going in, was consistent with what crime they were looking for. United States v. Edwards, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68441 (W.D. N.C. May 19, 2014).*
After defendant assaulted a police officer, heroin was found underneath him in plain view. State v. Coleman, 2014-Ohio-2091, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2036 (2d Dist. May 16, 2014).*
Warrantless police entry to arrest was with probable cause and exigent circumstances, although it was 90 minutes after a shooting. It was close enough to the shooting that the delay in getting a warrant could lead to flight or destruction of evidence or the safety of others could be at issue. The killing was cold blooded with the defendant taking a cab to a bar, shooting his victim, and then taking a cab home. Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 387 (May 19, 2014): Continue reading →
Posted inEmergency / exigency|Comments Off on MA: Exigency for warrantless pursuit entry still applied 90 minutes after a murder
Legal doctrine is replete with reasonableness tests. In fact, it is unlikely that any area of law lacks a reasonableness test at the center of a core doctrine. The Fourth Amendment is certainly no exception; the textual prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures has led the United States Supreme Court to conclude that the “ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” What makes the Fourth Amendment unique, however, is the relatively recent insistence on not one but two tiers of reasonableness review in adjudicating Fourth Amendment claims. Both the substance of the right and the availability of a remedy are currently assessed under overlapping, but distinct, reasonableness tests. Unfortunately, this double reasonableness review does not double the reasonableness of the ultimate results obtained; instead, it has something of the opposite effect. Double reasonableness blurs the lines between right and remedy. Previous scholarship has identified the strong link—or equilibration—between constitutional rights and remedies, but in this Article we go one step further and develop the claim that the content of the right itself is becoming increasingly obscure. The substance of the Fourth Amendment is stuck in a fog of remedial decisions, and double reasonableness is the chief culprit. Continue reading →
Posted inReasonableness|Comments Off on New Law Review Article: Double Reasonableness and the Fourth Amendment
Philadelphia, PA (May 19, 2014) – Can the police search the digital contents of a cellphone without a warrant or does it violate the Fourth Amendment? As the Supreme Court prepares to rule in two cases about cell phone data search and seizure—Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie—National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen hosts a discussion to discuss potential outcomes from the rulings as well as the future of the Fourth Amendment in this new era of technology. Participating in the discussion will be Stanford Law School Professor Jeffrey L. Fisher, a lead attorney in one of the cases. The program will take place on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 12 p.m. Admission is FREE, but reservations are recommended and can be made by calling 215-409-6700 or visiting constitutioncenter.org.
Posted inCell phones|Comments Off on consitutioncenter.org: Warrantless Cellphone Searches At Center of Fourth Amendment Program At the National Constitution Center
NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center aims to be a one-stop source of cutting-edge information on the proliferation of drones inside the United States. It collects news from leading publications across the nation; features a comprehensive listing of legislative developments; and contains sections devoted to relevant case law, government documents, scholarship, upcoming events, and data on drone usage. The Domestic Drone Information Center also aggregates existing material from other websites, making it a launching pad to additional information about domestic drones on the web.
As domestic drones become an issue of increasing concern – the FAA predicts that 30,000 drones will be deployed within 20 years – we hope that you find this material useful. Please contact us at drones@nacdl.org if you are aware of important drone information that we have not yet added. This project is supported by the Foundation for Criminal Justice and the Open Society Foundations.
This page was added to the sidebar today along with the EFF website.
And, this source is regularly maintained. Also, for what it’s worth, drones with HD video cameras (still shot here) were used by my local TV stations after the April 27th tornado to show the destruction. And the FAA doesn’t seem to be capable of doing anything.
Posted inDrones, Uncategorized|Comments Off on NACDL’s Domestic Drone Information Center
SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) – The federal government would need a warrant from a judge if it wants the cooperation of California officials in searching residents’ cellphone and computer records, under a bill making its way through the state legislature.
The bill, which passed the state Senate with just one opposing vote on Monday, was introduced in the wake of information leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden showing massive internal surveillance of U.S. citizens by the NSA.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on ChicagoTribune: NSA data-gathering may run into California roadblock
A Hamilton County theft case involving a man who stuffed $200 worth of candy in his pants erupted into a heated legal battle that has left defense attorneys still simmering.
On one side are defense attorneys, including the Public Defenders office, who insist Cincinnati Prosecutor Charlie Rubenstein improperly won a warrant to search the Public Defenders office for evidence in the case involving candy thief Terrance Jones, 43.
“We’re being punished for doing our work,” Public Defender Ray Faller said.
On the other is Rubenstein, who insists Scott Nazzarine, the public defense attorney representing Jones, improperly withheld evidence, forcing Rubenstein to get the search warrant.
“You can’t take evidence and hide it,” Rubenstein said. His office prosecutes misdemeanors in Cincinnati.
Why not just seek a court order? Too lazy?
Posted inWarrant execution, Warrant requirement|Comments Off on Cincinnati.com: Pants full of candy erupts into legal battle; SW for PD’s office
Pulling along side a person walking and telling him to stop and to get his hands out of his pockets is a command not a request and governed by Terry. Here, there was not reasonable suspicion. In re Rafeal E., 2014 IL App (1st) 133027, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 328 (May 16, 2014).
Officers came to defendant’s house on intel that he was selling drugs and had guns. Outside they could smell marijuana, and they went all around the house. Ultimately they entered for a protective sweep because of the guns, and they applied electronically for a warrant which issued. The protective sweep didn’t make it into the search warrant application, and the search warrant was issued on probable cause. United States v. Jordan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67287 (W.D. La. April 7, 2014), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67285 (W.D. La. May 15, 2014).*
The stop at a border checkpoint was valid and led to development of reasonable suspicion. United States v. Livingston, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67594 (D. Ariz. April 17, 2014).*
Posted inBorder search, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion|Comments Off on IL: Pulling along side a pedestrian and telling him to stop and get his hands out of his pockets is governed by Terry
Effective cross examination works: The court concludes on the credibility of the officers that they did not smell marijuana coming from defendant’s car, and the subsequent search is suppressed. United States v. Smith, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67306 (N.D. Ga. April 25, 2014):
The issue in this case is whether the government proved that the officers smelled marijuana emanating from Defendant’s automobile either during or immediately after detaining him for a traffic violation, sufficient to prolong the stop in order (1) for a drug detection canine to be dispatched to the scene, and (2) to remove Smith from his vehicle, which actions resulted in discovery of the firearm and, ultimately, the controlled substances which form the bases of the charges in this case. The Court concludes that the government has not satisfied its burden.
A warrantless search of a bag found a few feet from defendant’s apartment door was not objectively considered abandoned without some effort to find out the owner. Until the bag was objectively considered lost or abandoned, the officer could not search it to find the owner. State v. Vanburen, 262 Or. App. ___, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 644 (May 14, 2014) (decided under state constitution).
Plaintiff teacher was on notice that drug dog searches for drugs and guns occurred in teacher areas of classrooms of the school where he worked, so he had no reasonable expectation of privacy against them. Khachatourian v. La Puente Unified, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9134 (9th Cir. May 16, 2014).*
Defendant was agitated when he was arrested in his home for bank robbery, but he calmed down before he was asked for consent. On the totality, the court finds it consensual. United States v. Calix, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67146 (S.D. N.Y. May 12, 2014).*
Officers observed a hand-to-hand drug deal from a car and they approached it. Then the occupants tossed what appeared to be more. This was sufficient for a search incident of the car under Gant. United States v. Daniel, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67088 (W.D. Mo. April 8, 2014).*
Defendant’s wife’s information that he was on child pornography websites supported a fair inference that he could have had child pornography on his hard drive, too, or that his browser history would be incriminating. Therefore, the search warrant was validly issued. State v. Letoile, 2014 N.H. LEXIS 50 (May 16, 2014).*
Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to handcuff defendant for officer safety is a moot question because officers actually had probable cause at that point. United States v. Beltran, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9168 (7th Cir. May 15, 2014).*
An inventory search of defendant’s property in the book-in area of the jail was valid even though he was going to be OR’ed shortly. State v. Johnson, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 458 (May 15, 2014):
The Defendant also challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the search of the Defendant in the booking area of the Montgomery County Jail. He argues that “once a magistrate orders a person released upon their personal recognizance then that person is no longer under arrest or in custody.” Therefore, the Defendant asserts that Officer Dindar’s search was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment because the Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy and “there was no new probable cause to allow either Clarksville Police or the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department to seize the Defendant after he had been ordered released.”
Posted inInventory|Comments Off on TN: Inventory search of def’s property in the book-in area of jail was valid even though he was going to be OR’ed shortly
Gant did not void the search of defendant’s car where he’d already admitted there was methamphetamine in the car. Searching the car for meth, officers found a firearm and defendant was a convicted felon. United States v. Spack, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66517 (D. Minn. April 23, 2014)
Defendant’s stop was based on a 911 call where the caller reported that a man in a silver Infiniti pointed a gun at them in a high crime area and, during the call, yelled “that’s the car!” They gave the license number and the car was stopped. United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66936 (D. Mass. May 15, 2014).*
“Although Yazzie asserts that he did not know at the time of his plea that he was waiving the protections of rule 410 or that he was pleading guilty to an information rather than an indictment [and waiving his motion to suppress], these arguments do not render his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary.” United States v. Yazzie, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66729 (D. N.M. May 6, 2014).*
Probable cause was shown for the search warrant for defendant’s pain clinic and home for medical and financial records. And undercover officer got scripts without a proper examination. United States v. Callihan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66580 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2014).*
An accurate detailed description of the defendant and what he’d be driving [so?] from a regular reliable CI amounted to reasonable suspicion on the totality of the circumstances. State v. Beal, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 1274 (La.App. 5 Cir. May 14, 2014).*
English wasn’t defendant’s first language, but he spoke well enough to consent, and it’s found voluntary. No weapons were displayed, no threats were made. United States v. Alcazar-Castello, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66849 (D. Kan. May 15, 2014).*
AURORA, Colo. – Motorists who were detained at an Aurora intersection for more than two hours while officers attempted to catch a bank robber have sued the city for violating their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
The suit was filed Friday in federal district court on behalf of 14 plaintiffs, some of whom were approached at gunpoint by police at the intersection of Iliff Avenue and Buckley Road, handcuffed and made to wait for two hours while the scene was cleared.
Posted inRoadblocks|Comments Off on 7News Denver: Motorists sue over 2-hour traffic stop after bank robbery in Aurora in 2012
"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.
