Politix: Americans Need to Know What the CIA Did in Their Name. Will Congress Make it Happen? Op-ed by Derek Khanna (http://politix.topix.com/news/11115-americans-need-to-know-what-the-cia-did-in-their-name-will-congress-make-it-happen):

Continue reading →

HuffPo: Jimmy Carter Is Pretty Sure The NSA Is Spying On His Email by Mollie Reilly:

Continue reading →

WaPo: Volokh: Judge denies warrant application because he thinks the government doesn’t need a warrant by Orin Kerr:

Continue reading →

Defendant had no expectation of privacy in the interior of a taxicab from a dog sniff. Also, the driver consented to it, as he could do. United States v. Trapp, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37766 (D. Vt. March 20, 2014).

Defendant’s stop was valid for reasonable suspicion he was involved in a hand to hand drug transaction. “Officer Edmond and his partner approached the defendant and began conversing with him from a distance of one to two feet, at which time a piece of crack cocaine fell out of his mouth.” That was plain view. State v. Hall, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 720 (La.App. 4 Cir. March 19, 2014).*

Defendant was stopped for cutting off a semi when pulling in after passing it. Once stopped, the officer found it was a rental car, and defendant wasn’t the renter or an authorized driver. Reasonable suspicion existed to extend the stop. State v. Brazil, 2014-Ohio-995, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 985 (6th Dist. March 7, 2014).*

The trial court suppressed defendant’s statements after his DUI arrest in his garage. The officer claimed hot pursuit, but it looked more like a “lukewarm amble” because it was seriously disputed that the officer made any effort to communicate pursuit. Defendant walked into his garage and tried to close the door. The officer parked behind him without any lights on. But remanded for factual developments. State v. Cross, 2014-Ohio-1046, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 6235 (4th Dist. March 11, 2013):

Continue reading →

Government’s standard cell phone search warrant request had boilerplate and was overbroad and had to be narrowed. In re Search of Black Iphone 4, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36319 (D. D.C. March 11, 2014) [recently posted from the same judge is In re Search of Information Associated with [Redacted]@mac.com, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35323 (D. D.C. March 7, 2014)]:

Continue reading →

In the application for search warrant for this cell phone, the phone appears to be abandoned. If so, the government doesn’t need a search warrant to search it. Application denied as moot. In re Application of United States for a Search Warrant for a Black Kyocera Corp Model C5170 Cellular Telephone with FCC ID: V65V5170, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36906 (D.D.C. March 7, 2014). [At least the feds in DC are cautious enough to seek a search warrant in cell phone seizures. The locals aren’t hardly anywhere. They haven’t gotten word that Wurie and Riley were even coming. I’ve even had a case where the locals detained a person, seized the phone, dumped its contents, handed it back, and then released the person.]

There was a fact dispute whether defendant was told that the officers would get a warrant if she did not consent, but she was also told that she could refuse consent. On the totality, the consent was voluntary. United States v. Olson, 2014 CCA LEXIS 175 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. March 18, 2014).*

The affidavit for the search warrant here was clearly not “bare bones.” Probable cause exists and good faith applied. United States v. Gayfield, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37049 (W.D. La. February 24, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36980 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2014).*

Business Insider: Justice Scalia Gave An Intriguing Non-Answer Question To A Question About NSA Spying by Erin Fuchs:

Continue reading →

The Legislative Response to Mass Police Surveillance, Stephen Rushin, 79 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1 (2014). Abstract:

Continue reading →

Defendant contended officers invalidly entered his house to do a protective sweep, and that led to a search warrant. The only thing in the affidavit that wasn’t already known was the presence of a money counter. If that is struck from the affidavit, the remainder is valid. United States v. Jones, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37300 (D. Conn. March 21, 2014):

Continue reading →

Defendant was arrested for DUI and placed in a patrol car. Her car was not subject to search incident. However, the officer could go back to the car to turn it off, roll up the window, and collect her purse under the caretaking function. The finding of marijuana and a pipe was thus in plain view. State v. Myers, 2014-Ohio-1039, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 957 (5th Dist. March 14, 2014).*

Jaywalking and dropping something is “wrongdoing” of some kind and supported a stop. State v. Duran, 2014 Utah App. LEXIS 67 (March 20, 2014).*

The officer had reason to stop defendant because he was speeding, clocked by radar, albeit in the opposite lane of I-20. United States v. Kelly, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37220 (N.D. Ga. March 21, 2014).*

The government still hasn’t complied with the D.D.C.’s requirements for electronic searches. Do it again. In re Odys Loox Plus Tablet Serial Number 4707213703415 in Custody of United States Postal Inspection Service, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37110 (D.D.C. March 20, 2014), a sequal to In re Search of Black iPhone (posted here):

Continue reading →

Probable Cause on a Leash, Taylor Phipps, 23 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 57 (2014). Abstract:

Continue reading →

Defendant, a man, was stopped because he was driving the van of a female friend for whom there was a warrant out. Before the stop, however, the officer saw that the driver was not the wanted person, but stopped him anyway and asked for his DL. The stop was without reasonable suspicion because it dissipated between first observation of the vehicle and seeing the driver was obviously not the wanted person. People v. Cummings, 2014 IL 115769, 2014 Ill. LEXIS 106 (March 20, 2014), affg People v. Cummings, 2013 IL App (3d) 120128, 368 Ill. Dec. 692, 984 N.E.2d 1162 (2013):

Continue reading →

Consent granted in defendant’s front yard was found free and voluntary. United States v. Conrad, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23787 (N.D. Iowa February 24, 2014),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37134 (N.D. Iowa March 21, 2014).*

Officers responded to a shots fired call and found shell casings at the scene. A witness at the scene said they came from a Dodge Intrepid. That was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s “felony stop” in the car. Then defendant consented to the search of the car. United States v. Stately, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22953 (D. Minn. January 22, 2014), R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22263 (D. Minn. February 20, 2014).*

Defendant’s Franks challenge that IP addresses can change during an investigation failed here because the record showed that the same IP address was associated with defendant’s home for the entire two months during the relevant period of the investigation. State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 2014 Neb. LEXIS 28 (February 21, 2014).*

Defendant wasn’t Mirandized, but he consented to a search of his cell phone. He’d been arrested six times and been in prison, so it’s a reasonable inference that he knew about his right to refuse consent. While he had been “diagnosed with multiple mental disorders,” there is no evidence any of that impaired his thinking. United States v. Thorne, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27647 (N.D. Iowa March 3, 2014), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37133 (N.D. Iowa March 21, 2014).

In a suppression of a confession case, defense counsel filed the motion late but it was heard, and defendant had to make a choice between a plea offer and the suppression hearing. Since there is no constitutional right to a plea offer, the defendant wasn’t prejudiced. Also, while defense counsel could have done a better job at the hearing, it wasn’t constitutionally deficient performance. State v. Morris, 2014 Kan. LEXIS 108 (March 7, 2014).

Defendant consented to a search of his house, and the government proved it. The police report didn’t mention the word “consent,” but that’s what it all meant. United States v. Brown, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29313 (E.D. Mich. March 7, 2014).*

The police consent form for a blood draw for a DUI case is not inconsistent with Missouri v. McNeely. McVaugh v. State, 2014 Del. LEXIS 128 (March 19, 2014).*

Defendant’s argument that the officer unreasonably detained him when seeking consent was waived by not raising it below. On the merits, he loses anyway because the officer was still in the process of writing the ticket when the consent was sought and given. Bryant v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 186 (March 20, 2014).*

Defendant’s probation search was justified by reasonable suspicion that he was involved in the disappearance of the victim who was later found murdered. State v. Diana, 2014 ME 45, 2014 Me. LEXIS 48 (March 20, 2014).*

Defendant was stopped because he was driving the van of a friend of his for whom there was a warrant out. Before the stop, however, the officer saw that the driver was not the wanted person, but stopped him anyway. The stop was without reasonable suspicion because it dissipated between first observation of the vehicle and seeing the driver was not the wanted person. People v. Cummings, 2013 IL App (3d) 120128, 984 N.E.2d 1162 (2013), affd People v. Derrick, 2014 IL 115769, 2014 Ill. LEXIS 106 (March 20, 2014).

Defendant’s stop and its justification were videotaped, and he was weaving. That was at least reasonable suspicion. Acree v. State, 319 Ga. App. 854, 737 S.E.2d 103 (2013).*

Defendant was not seized when an officer came up to her asleep in her car with the engine running and told her to roll down the window. Pierce v. State, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 59 (February 8, 2013).*

Defendant’s weaving was reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Littlefield, 2013 Ohio 481, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 418 (4th Dist. February 7, 2013).*