Reason: Probable Cause is Too Hard for the NSA? Too Bad. by Andrew Napolitano:

The NSA knows it is violating the Fourth Amendment, which expressly forbids general warrants.

NYT: Bits Blog: Microsoft to Stop Inspecting Private Emails in Investigations by Nick Wingfield:

Continue reading →

BLT: Franken Introduces Bill on Smartphone, Internet Privacy by Andrew Ramonas:

Continue reading →

CT Law Tribune: Gideon: Cellphones And The Fourth Amendment

Continue reading →

The officer’s request to roll up sleeves so he could look at arms was not a seizure. Defendant could have refused and he was not told he was seized. State v. Richards, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 249 (March 27, 2014).

Defendant consented to a seizure and search of his computer knowing that the police wanted it to conduct a forensic examination for child pornography. The consent was voluntary. New v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 253 (March 27, 2014).*

The juvenile here was stopped for jaywalking and handcuffed. Officers asked if he had anything illegal on him, and he admitted he had a marking pen, so he was charged with possession of graffiti paraphernalia. Possession of a felt tip pen is not per se a crime, so the arrest was invalid. In re S.F., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 284 (4th Dist. February 25, 2014), ordered published March 26, 2014.

Officers entry onto the curtilage to stand in a flowerbed and look in a window was an unreasonable search. Even assuming some such entries are permissible along the sidewalk from the street, this was away from the path, and it was clearly curtilage. The court relies on Jardines. Sayers v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3351 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) March 27, 2014):

Continue reading →

Officers arrested a person in a parked car outside a house. The person arrested wanted to leave the keys with the person in the house, and the officers agreed. The house was on a corner, and the kitchen window faced the street. From the street, the officers couldn’t make out who was inside, so they went to the window to look, and they saw defendant inside with drugs. The officers unlawfully entered the curtilage to make the view. Sayers v. State, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14436 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) November 26, 2013) [opinion withdrawn, same result on rehearing Sayers v. State\, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3351 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) March 27, 2014)]:

Continue reading →

Defendant’s cross examination during the suppression hearing produced his testimony that he felt “100%” free to leave when the officer handed all the paperwork back to him, started to walk away, turned around and came back and started talking again. Defendant consented to a search of the car. Defendant conceded from the beginning that the stop was lawful. State v. Salvador, 237 Ore. App. 424, 241 P.3d 324 (2010). This is reminiscent of Kentucky v. Rawlings where the defendant admitted he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the drugs he stuck in a woman’s purse. No matter how much one prepares a client for a suppression hearing, clients will often hang themselves on standing or the merits of the search. Here, it was necessary to put the client on to at least raise a fact question that he did not feel free to leave, and then he gave the wrong answer.

Defendant did not preserve the claim that an adversary proceeding is a prerequisite to surgical removal of a bullet from his arm. The warrant here was otherwise valid. State v. Everett, 237 Ore. App. 556, 240 P.3d 102 (2010).

The vehicle occupants’ false answers extended the stop, not the officer, so the extension of the stop and the “exit order” were with reasonable suspicion. Commonwealth v. Elysee, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 833, 934 N.E.2d 837, 92 A.L.R.6th 687 (2010).*

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and he leaned and hid his hands, and that justified a patdown. “The fact that an officer does not issue a traffic citation is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the stop.” State v. Cole, 131 So. 3d 931 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2013).

Defendant’s stop and patdown were without a reasonable suspicion of crime, let alone possession of a weapon. State v. Hawkins, 2013-Ohio-5458, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5709 (2d Dist. December 13, 2013).*

The officer parked his police car so that the headlights were on defendant as he was getting something from a plastic bag on the ground. The stop was consensual, as was the patdown. State v. Phillips, __ Kan. App. __, 315 P.3d 887 (2013).*

Defendant was riding a bicycle, and the officer stopped his car without lights and got off. Defendant stopped and talked to the officer. Defendant exhibited nervousness and was fidgety and putting his hands in his pockets. The officer told him to keep his hands out, but he didn’t. That justified a patdown, and cocaine was subject to plain feel. June v. State, 131 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).*

At the guilty plea, it appeared that the search of defendant was valid, and he clearly knew that he was waiving a motion to suppress by pleading guilty. “The record demonstrates that Williams chose to proceed as he did because the search appeared lawful, and he concluded it would be in his best interest not to challenge it.” It also didn’t help that he said he pled guilty not knowing that he’d probably be deported when the guilty plea transcript shows that was clearly discussed. Williams v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167668 (W.D. Ky. November 27, 2012).*

Evaluating counsel’s performance on failing to pursue search warrant questions, the court concludes that the warrants would have sustained, one at least for good faith, and just barely. The court analyzes in detail the merits of the search and seizure question to find no failure of performance. United States v. Santana, 962 F. Supp. 2d 906 (E.D. Mich. 2013).

There was probable cause and nexus for the search warrant for defendant’s house for drugs. United States v. Navarro, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113180 (E.D. Tex. July 26, 2013).*

Informant’s tip corroborated by apparent hand-to-hand transactions was probable cause. United States v. Guzman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113836 (S.D. Tex. August 13, 2013).*