Because the law of cell phone search incident is unsettled (noting the cert grant in Riley and Wurie) and police officers know that search incident to arrest is permitted, why shouldn’t the good faith exception apply to the search of a cell phone, even if it might be held illegal later. [So, essentially, if the law hasn’t developed, the law of qualified immunity now applies to criminal cases.] Finally, ECPA doesn’t apply to a subpoena to Craiglist for posting information. United States v. Lustig, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31554 (S.D. Cal. March 11, 2014):

Continue reading →

The inventory here was valid because it was reasonable. The state didn’t have to show that it was absolutely necessary. Here, there was nobody with defendant to take the car because all his companions fled the scene and the car would have been left for an indeterminate time on a residential street. An actual inventory did occur. Askew v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 135 (March 12, 2014):

Continue reading →

AP: Officers’ body cameras raise privacy concerns (via FoxNews, here):

Continue reading →

AP: US lags as commercial drones take off around globe:

Continue reading →

“William Bernard was arrested for suspected drunk driving and refused to take a breath test requested by police under the state’s implied consent law. The state charged Bernard with the crime of test refusal. The district court dismissed the charge, reasoning that the Constitution prohibits the state from criminalizing refusal to submit to a search that could not be compelled without a warrant. We reverse because the state may prosecute a suspected drunk driver for test refusal under the implied consent law when the requesting officer had other lawful means to obtain a nonconsensual test.” State v. Bernard, 2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 27 (March 17, 2014).

Going into defendant’s open garage to knock on the inside door was reasonable because the officer was investigating defendant’s overturned car. Defendant was found allegedly intoxicated in the house. The trial court opined that there was no evidence to convict defendant of driving the car at the time, but that wasn’t a part of the suppression order. Reversed. State v. Harris, 2014 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 13 (March 14, 2014).*

It was a question of fact for the trial court whether the drug dog alerted or “relieved itself” by sitting down. Defendant lost, and the findings support the conclusion. McKinney v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 176 (March 18, 2014).*

Defendant consented to a blood DNA sample in a sex assault case. After a match, the state sought a search warrant to get a confirming test. The prior match was probable cause for issuing the warrant. Couch v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 147 (March 13, 2014).*

The NJ wiretap law, modeled after Title III, is not unconstitutional because a cell phone wiretap could reach conversations outside of the state. State v. Ates, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 238 (March 18, 2014).*

WaPo: Kansas could make it a felony to report unfounded allegations of police abuse by Radley Balko:

Continue reading →

WaPo: NSA develops capability to record ‘every single’ call in one country by Barton Gellman and Ashkan Soltani:

Continue reading →

Officer lawfully approached defendant for panhandling, even though it was daytime. His practice of always patting down everybody he encounters made the patdown here invalid because there was no reasonable suspicion he was armed. Chism v. State, 418 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009).

“In this appeal, we hold that a positive alert on a vehicle by a trained narcotics detection dog, combined with the subsequent fruitless searches of the vehicle, the driver, and two passengers, does not provide sufficient particularized probable cause to allow a search of the only remaining passenger in the vehicle. We will therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the search at issue did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 300, 683 S.E.2d 299 (2009), rev’g Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 1, 668 S.E.2d 435, 438 (2008).

Valid plain view occurred when officer responding to shots fired call saw shotgun shell in car, and he could enter the car under the automobile exception to retrieve it. Commonwealth v. Turner, 2009 PA Super 190, 982 A.2d 90 (2009).

Defendant was validly arrested because the officer knew there was a scofflaw warrant out for him. Commonwealth v. Galendez, 2009 PA Super 185, 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3286 (September 16, 2009).*

Officer could approach a parked car with a flat tire to inquire of the welfare of the driver under the community caretaking function. She had slurred speech. State v. Huecker, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 759 (September 15, 2009).*

The use of administrative search power in aid of a Medicaid criminal investigation made the search violate the Illinois constitution. People v. Lee, 2014 IL App (1st) 130507, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 167 (March 14, 2014):

Continue reading →

The Atlantic: The Spirit of the 4th Amendment–And the NSA’s Disregard for It by Conor Friedersdorf:

A Constitutional attorney explains why the phone dragnet is antithetical to a core liberty America’s founding document is supposed to protect.

Continue reading →

The defendant ran a clinic, and he’s accused of distributing oxycodone. Two search warrants were executed. They were particular but had a catchall phrase, but this did not render the warrant defective. The lack of a time limitation in the warrant also did not make the warrant so constitutionally overbroad that the good faith exception couldn’t apply. In a discussion that sounds like it tracks the civil qualified immunity standard, there was no controlling precedent to show that the officers’ conduct was unreasonable. United States v. Jacobson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33705 (E.D. N.Y. March 13, 2014):

Continue reading →

Defendant consented to her son’s autopsy by signing an authorization form. [Why the court doesn’t talk about standing to contest an autopsy I don’t understand. Who would logically have standing to challenge an autopsy as a search? A parent of a young child, maybe.] United States v. Kuzor, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33198 (D. S.D. March 13, 2014).*

The only facts in this case show that plaintiff’s car was unregistered and properly impounded. Hylton v. WMC Anytime Towing, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4975 (9th Cir. March 17, 2014).*

Defense counsel did, in fact, move to suppress evidence, so he’s not ineffective for not. United States v. Osamor, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34119 (S.D. Tex. March 16, 2014).*

Officer’s statement to defendant “give me the drugs you just bought” was a command, not a request. Hernandez-Espino v. State, 324 Ga. App. 849, 752 S.E.2d 10 (2013):

Continue reading →

The officer encountered the defendant in a convenience store, and he said he could smell marijuana on his person. Defendant got in his car and drove off. The officer decided to give chase and stop him. The stop was unreasonable, and the product of the stop was used to get a search warrant and that was properly suppressed, too. State v. Jones, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 207 (March 11, 2014) (concurrence; dissent).

Asking defendant in Spanish about searching the car using the word “buscar” explained he wanted to search. The fact defendant lawyered up when he was Mirandized doesn’t prove that his consent was invalid. United States v. Leiva, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31059 (C.D. Ill. March 7, 2014), R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185873 (C.D. Ill. November 26, 2013):

Continue reading →

Officers didn’t misrepresent themselves during the knock-and-talk looking for an armed drug dealer in the country illegally; they were just invited in without saying what they were there for. Once inside, the officers asked in Spanish about others being in the house, and one of the occupants motioned with his head. Officers pulled their weapons and ordered people to come out, and they did. Then there was a protective sweep, which was valid. “Protective sweeps need not always occur in conjunction with an arrest.” United States v. Crisolis-Gonzalez, 742 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2014):

Continue reading →