A CI called police and said that he could buy crack from a man with tattoos on his face. They set up a controlled buy out of defendant’s house. That was probable cause for a search warrant. State v. Young, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 966 (La. App. 5 Cir. April 9, 2014).*

Defendant’s obvious hand-to-hand drug transaction supported his stop. State v. Whye, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 185 (April 9, 2014).*

Defendant’s cotenant consented to a search that revealed a sledgehammer used to break into a building. His reliance on Randolph is off the mark because he didn’t veto consent; Fernandez holds consent still valid. State v. Percy, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 987 (La.App. 2 Cir. April 9, 2014).*

Defendant was found to have abandoned his sweatshorts which had a gun in the pocket. United States v. Mosley, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6500 (10th Cir. April 9, 2014).*

Officers told defendant they wanted to search his cell phone for sexually explicit photographs, and he was found to have consented. United States v. Rounds, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6545 (5th Cir. April 9, 2014).*

Pro se 2255 petitioner’s claim that state officers conducting a search can’t have that case prosecuted in federal court is utterly without merit. United States v. Jackson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49100 (W.D. Ark. January 30, 2014).*

Plaintiff prison inmate filed a “§ 1983 complaint in which he contended that he was forced to undergo strip and visual body cavity searches without reasonable justification.” He stated a Fourth Amendment claim so reversed and remanded. Scheidel v. Sec’y of Pub. Safety & Corr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6534 (5th Cir. April 9, 2014).

Officers approached a vehicle illegally parked in front of a drug house, and they could lawfully order the occupants out of the car. The search of the passenger compartment was justified by probable cause under the automobile exception and fear of a weapon. United States v. Neria, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48832 (N.D. Tex. April 9, 2014).*

Information in the SW affidavit that defendant was bringing drugs to a sale point from his house was nexus for a search warrant for the house. United States v. Davis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48843 (W.D. Pa. April 9, 2014).*

WaPo: Volokh: The need for computer-specific Fourth Amendment rules in the cell phone search cases by Orin Kerr:

Continue reading →

Techdirt: SEC Is A Due Process Nightmare: Searches Emails Without A Warrant, Refuses To Share Exculpatory Evidence by Mike Masnick:

Continue reading →

NYT Blog: Do the Courts Have a Role to Play in Drone Strikes? by Dorothy J. Samuels:

Continue reading →

Slate: The Fourth Amendment Shell Game by Julian Sanchez

One of Obama’s NSA reforms just makes the problem worse.

WaPo: Volokh: The Fourth Amendment and Airport Security, cont’d by David Post:

Continue reading →

Natural dissipation of BAC isn’t an exigent circumstance dispensing with a warrant. Here, there always was a nighttime magistrate for warrants and a phlebotomist in the jail, too. Sutherland v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3694 (Tex. App. – Amarillo April 7, 2014).

Sales of drugs brought immediately from defendant’s house established nexus to the house for a search warrant. When the police arrived with a warrant, they realized that there was actually a third floor apartment, not just a second, so they got another warrant. The fact there was another apartment didn’t undermine the informant’s veracity. Commonwealth v. Forbes, 2014 Mass. App. LEXIS 36 (April 8, 2014).

Plaintiff was arrested outside her house, but a protective sweep of her house was justified by the fact her adult son was a drug dealer and was unaccounted for. Alexander v. Smith, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6535 (5th Cir. April 9, 2014).*

One-party consent to recording a conversation is valid in Massachusetts, unless it happens in the home. Here, officers had a warrant authorizing recording in case it happened in the home, but it was in a car instead. Commonwealth v. Hearns, 467 Mass. 707 (April 8, 2014):

Continue reading →

While Indiana is a plain error state, the failure to raise a search and seizure issue before trial is likely a waiver because, as here, there was nothing on which to base a fundamental error claim, as it was presented. Mamon v. State, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 144 (April 7, 2014).*

Police responded to a shots fired call and there was a crowd of about 25 involved in a fight. With a police dog the officer dispersed the crowd. Once things calmed down, a woman said that that man over there in the pink shirt had a gun. She nodded her head in defendant’s direction. The officer approached the defendant, and the defendant walked off. The officer followed and defendant went to a house and up on the porch. The officer tried to talk to him, but he was getting more nervous and fidgeting with his keys to go in the house. The officer tried to handcuff him for officer safety, and he resisted, so the officer threatened the dog would bite, and defendant complied. The patdown was with reasonable suspicion, and the woman was not truly anonymous. State v. Blackshear, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 181 (April 7, 2014).*

John Doe and DNA profile arrest warrant sufficiently particular for Fourth Amendment, when that’s all they have. State v. Carlson, 2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 37 (April 7, 2014):

Continue reading →

Good faith first, merits second. Defendant had to show that the warrant was so lacking in probable cause that an officer couldn’t rely on it, and he didn’t. United States v. Alvarez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6440 (5th Cir. April 8, 2014)* (not on court’s website).

The government seized virtually all patient records (2,747) for prescription drug fraud, but the defense was not interested in partial suppression as a remedy; only total suppression which is denied. It appeared that nearly all of the files were suspect. “However, given the nature of the practice, Wetselaar’s admission that ‘pretty much … all’ of the files contained prescriptions for controlled substances, and the high proportion of files satisfying the terms of the warrant under either parties’ analysis, the Court cannot find either flagrant disregard for the terms of the warrant, or that the Government was engaged in indiscriminate fishing.” United States v. Wetselaar, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48365 (D. Nev. April 7, 2014), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186891 (D. Nev. December 31, 2013).

Officers were called for assistance to a man on the ground next to a bicycle. It appeared that the man was high because he was incoherent. A search of the man’s person and bag was justified. United States v. Campos, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48458 (W.D. Mo. March 7, 2014).*