During a traffic stop, the officer learned there was an outstanding warrant on a passenger who had to be arrested. The officer asked if there was anything in the car he needed to be aware of, and they said no. Then he was more specific: “Any guns, drugs, knives, bombs, anything illegal?” Defendant was being removed from the vehicle, and he admitted he had a gun in his waistband, and he was arrested for felon in possession and carrying a weapon. The stop had not been unreasonably prolonged at the point that was discovered. State v. Blanks, 2014-Ohio-1658, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 1593 (2d Dist. April 18, 2014).*

Defendant was stopped for not signaling at 4 am, and he was wanted. His car was reasonably searched as an inventory under department policy. United States v. Sanchez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54196 (D. Minn. March 28, 2014).*

The trial court credited that the defendant consented after a knock-and-talk at his hotel room, and the fact finding supports the legal conclusion of voluntariness. State v. Avila, 2014 Iowa App. LEXIS 447 (April 16, 2014).*

A “mild ruse” to gain entry by consent to serve an immigration warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. De La Cruz, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54126 (D. Mass. April 18, 2014):
Continue reading →

LA Times: How technology helped crack the Kansas City highway shooter case by Matt Pearce. Police license plate scanners helped find the person alleged to be the highway shooter:
Continue reading →

Credit: http://pumabydesign001.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/police-state-when-did-this-become-this.jpg

See also Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces (2013).

Anybody out there remember “Adam-12” (1968-75) produced by Jack Webb of “Dragnet” (1951-59) fame? I’m dating myself, and likely my view of the Constitution.

The search of defendant’s dog’s blood in an animal neglect case was a search of a personal effect under the Oregon Constitution requiring a warrant. State v. Newcomb, 262 Or. App. __, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 538 (April 16, 2014), rev’d State v. Newcomb, 359 Ore. 756, 2016 Ore. LEXIS 366 (June 16, 2016). Court of appeals decision noted in Oregon Animal Law Blog: Court of Appeals: Admitting Dog’s Medical Records Violates Defendant’s Fourth Amendment.

After 17 years in prison, a man walks free when a federal judge rules that officers manufactured evidence by Jarrel Wade and Curtis Killman:

A man who has spent 17 years in federal prison was freed Friday after a judge found that law officers — including some later convicted in a corruption probe — manufactured evidence in order to obtain his drug conviction.

Jeffrey Dan Williams was convicted in 1997 of methamphetamine and firearm possession charges and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

U.S. District Judge James H. Payne issued an order on Friday vacating the judgment and sentence and dismissing the indictments against Williams, now 53.

United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54092 (N.D. Okla. April 18, 2014):

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds it has the inherent power and jurisdiction to grant relief. The facts of this case clearly establish this Court properly and liberally construed Williams’ pleading as a fraud upon the court motion. The Court further finds the scheme to manufacture evidence was deliberately planned, carefully executed and intended to defraud this Court, and in fact, this Court did rely upon the fraudulently manufactured evidence in order to convict and sentence Williams. As a result of such fraud upon the court, the conviction, sentencing and judgment in Williams’ criminal conviction was not, in essence, a decision at all and never became final. This Court finds the fraud discussed herein did harm the “integrity of the judicial process” and the actions of officers and agents harmed the integrity of the judicial process. Finally, Williams has provided newly discovered evidence that satisfies the miscarriage of justice actual innocence standard. Therefore, this Court has both the duty and the power to vacate its own prior judgment. Accordingly, the Court vacates Defendant’s judgment and sentence and dismisses the Indictments.

[Note: What is 17 years of wrongful incarceration worth, City of Tulsa?]