Atlantic: Why Isn’t the Fourth Amendment Classified as Top Secret? by Conor Friedersdorf:

Think how much useful information its text and the case law surrounding it tell America’s enemies.

Continue reading →

ABAJ: Swallowing anonymous tip in court gets Crime Stoppers chief cited for contempt by Martha Neil:

Continue reading →

Defendant had wallet in hand and set it down on the vehicle seat before his arrest. It was an effect subject to search incident when he was arrested. State v. Hargis, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 224 (March 17, 2014).

Defendant got his suppression hearing in the 2255 hearing and lost. Officers came to do a knock and talk and saw a methamphetamine lab inside. “The search of Green’s trailer and shed was decidedly constitutional. [¶] The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing reveals no basis for the trial court to have suppressed any evidence seized by law enforcement officers and since petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is not meritorious, no ineffective assistance of counsel—by Mr. Soto—resulted from the failure to file a motion to suppress.” Green v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33469 (S.D. Ala. February 4, 2014),* Adopted by, Post-conviction relief denied at, Certificate of appealability denied 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32402 (S.D. Ala. March 13, 2014).*

Defendant argued that defense counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the firearm in this case, but the question was really sufficiency of the evidence. “Petitioner’s argument that the firearm legally belonged to his wife is irrelevant to the constitutionality of the search pursuant to the warrant.” McGriff v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35746 (D. Md. March 19, 2014).*

The police entered on an arrest warrant and then conducted a protective sweep. There was no response to a flash bang device, and that was not determinative of whether the protective sweep could legally occur. United States v. Gomez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33816 (N.D. Cal. March 14, 2014):

Continue reading →

Defendant’s motion for return of mounted endangered animals found in plain view during an IRS criminal division search is denied. They were found in plain view during the execution of the search warrant and their incriminating nature was immediately apparent. United States v. Brugnara, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4157 (N.D. Cal. January 7, 2014).*

Defendant signed a complete consent to search as a probation condition. When the officer was at his door and defendant answered the door, there was the “the acrid, distinctive odor of a methamphetamine cook,” and defendant was a known meth cook. United States v. Smith, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183417 (E.D. Tenn. November 13, 2013).*

Arizona v. Gant and the Fourth Amendment do not ensure an accurate trial. They do not involve our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to a fair trial, or protect the fairness of a criminal proceeding. Thus, Gant was not essential to the accuracy or fairness of a trial and, thus, was not a watershed procedural rule and did not apply retroactively to a case still pending on habeas. Garcia v. Comm’r of Corr., 147 Conn. App. 669, 84 A.3d 1 (2014).*

That an emergency “might” come into being is not enough to dispense with a warrant. There was probable cause, but no warrant and no exigency. United States v. Castro, 959 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (W.D. Mo. 2013)*:

Continue reading →

Officers executing a Florida state search warrant for child pornography searched a closet and found Hi8 tapes marked ostensibly as homemade child pornography. Some CP was found in a red duffle bag. Officers seized a locked black duffle bag and took it to the police station where they cut the lock off and searched it. The search of the black duffle bag was justified under the original warrant, and a separate warrant was not required for it. United States v. Sensi, 542 Fed. Appx. 8 (2d Cir. 2013).*

Defendant had standing to challenge the stop of the vehicle he was in but not its search. He also disclaimed possession of the gun found in the car. Even if he had standing, it was found during a lawful protective sweep. United States v. Jackson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134908 (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2013).*

The search of defendant’s hotel room is found to be consensual on the totality. United States v. Hymon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135099 (M.D. Fla. September 16, 2013).*

The police received a tip that a car matching defendant’s car’s description was operated by a drunk driver. The officer followed and observed no erratic driving or traffic offense. There was no reasonable suspicion at all for defendant’s stop, and the motion to suppress was properly granted. State v. Hneidy, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 7788 (Tex. App. – San Antonio June 26, 2013).*

The use of scanning software on a P2P network does not view the files on a computer. It looks for hash values of known child pornography, and there is no violation of any expectation of privacy when one uses P2P networking. United States v. Dodson, 960 F. Supp. 2d 689 (W.D. Tex. 2013).*

Certificate of appealability of a state habeas petition dismissed under Stone v. Powell is denied. There is no reasonable possibility jurists would disagree that petitioner had his opportunity to litigate the search issue in state court and did. Kaufman v. Miller, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17491 (10th Cir. August 21, 2013).*

Court finds three officers’ testimony incredible on seeing defendant having a gun and letting him get out of the car with it and never saying a word about the gun until after it’s seized. United States v. Mayo, 960 F. Supp. 2d 419 (E.D. N.Y. 2013):

Continue reading →

A backpack was a proper subject of a frisk under Terry and Long. There was reasonable suspicion for a frisk of defendant’s backpack for a weapon on the totality of circumstances. It was a proper subject of a frisk. He was a suspect in a burglary, was suspected to be armed with a weapon in the backpack, and refused to stop when the police called out to him. Alternatively, the court finds the officers’ claim that defendant consented not believable because they claimed he repeatedly said he consented but the defendant said he repeatedly said he did not consent. The government did not carry the burden on consent. United States v. Leo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182360 (E.D.Wis. October 30, 2013), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 874 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 6, 2014).

Officers had a credible report from a citizen informant that there had been domestic violence on the property, and that justified their coming. When there was no answer at the door, it was reasonable for them to enter. United States v. Dupree, 540 Fed. Appx. 884 (10th Cir. 2014).*

The statement from the officer wasn’t false under Franks. The law recognizes that facts are gathered hastily and can be inaccurate without invalidating a warrant. In addition, even if false, it wasn’t presented in bad faith, so Franks affords no relief. United States v. Holmes, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182388 (W.D. Tenn. December 9, 2013).*

Officers had information that defendant was selling marijuana, so they went to his trailer to do a knock and talk. They could smell marijuana outside. When defendant opened the door and saw the police he started running, and that was an exigency justifying police entry because he likely was going to attempt to flee or destroy evidence. Pache v. State, 413 S.W.3d 509 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2013).

The district court’s finding of third party consent is supported by the evidence. United States v. Washington, 542 Fed. Appx. 234 (4th Cir. 2013).

Having the ability to raise a Fourth Amendment claim in state court is considered collateral estoppel [not just a Stone v. Powell bar]. Phelan v. Sullivan, 541 Fed. Appx. 21 (2d Cir. 2013).*

Consent to search a house in the face of getting a search warrant is found voluntary, and the defendant’s version is discounted. There was no threat to arrest his sisters; the officers said they would potentially arrest the sisters if the circumstances justified it. United States v. Thompson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132541 (D. Conn. September 17, 2013).*

Michigan statute authorizes search of a parolee on reasonable suspicion that he’s violating the law, and that complies with Griffin. United States v. Koenig, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132350 (E.D. Mich. September 17, 2013).*

District court’s decision crediting one witness over another in a question of exigent circumstances to enter a house during a domestic call is not clearly erroneous. The facts not in dispute showed exigency. United States v. Wood, 542 Fed. Appx. 208 (3d Cir. 2013).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging a consent search of the place he was arrested in on a federal warrant where consent was given by his girlfriend. Hutcherson v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143249 (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2013).*

Officers had a search warrant for a computer, but not for child pornography. Defendant was suspected of expecting a 14 year old girl to show up at his house, and the computer search was for evidence related to that. On file “a bucket,” officers found child porn, and it was found in plain view during an otherwise valid search. United States v. Skow, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143357 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2013).*

False arrest § 1983 case accrues when a judicial officer determines PC exists. Serino v. Hensley, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22382 (7th Cir. November 4, 2013).*

Plaintiff did not state a claim against an officer that accidentally shot him during a mental health episode, but he did against the department for a lack of training in dealing with mentally ill persons. Estate of Bleck v. City of Alamosa, 540 Fed. Appx. 866 (10th Cir. 2013).*

There is no tolling of limitations in Wisconsin for false arrest while you’re in jail. Segues v. Springob, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22333 (7th Cir. November 4, 2013).*

CNN: This drone can steal what’s on your phone by Erica Fink:

Continue reading →

NPR: Does Newark’s Stop-And-Frisk Stop Crime, Violate Privacy, Or Both?

Different versions of the “stop-and-frisk” policy are playing out in several major cities. Writer Daniel Bergner and educator Gemar Mills discuss how it works in Newark, New Jersey.

Politico: Feds confirm Bush-era surveillance by Josh Gerstein:

Prior to July 2004, internet and phone tracking programs ran solely on the president’s orders.

Continue reading →

WaPo: Utah is a hotbed of police reform (Updated) by Radley Balko:

Continue reading →