No standing to challenge installation of GPS for two reasons: (1) while the car was parked on defendant’s driveway, that’s where cars were commonly parked, and it was close to the street, so this would not be considered curtilage; (2) he didn’t claim he regularly drove the car, just occasionally drove it, so it wasn’t his to complain. United States v. Dooley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185902 (N.D. Ga. January 29, 2013)*:

Continue reading →

No reasonable expectation of privacy in the grass behind a convenience store where defendant kept his drugs for sale. Ramirez v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2703 (Tex. App. – San Antonio March 12, 2014).*

A warrant was obtained for cell site location data, and defendant’s Franks argument that it wouldn’t have issued if the district court had known the missing fact fails for lack of materiality. United States v. Thousand, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4627 (7th Cir. March 12, 2014).*

Dispatch telling the officer defendant had two prior DWIs was reliable enough to based a forced blood draw under Texas law. The larger constitutional question wasn’t preserved. 25 year sentence affirmed. Perez v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2681 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) March 11, 2014).*

In the Washington Navy Yard shooting case, the government sought a search warrant for the dead shooter’s Facebook account, and the USMJ narrowed the request because it didn’t adequately protect third parties. [No free link on court’s website, and this court has an opinions link, and this was just posted to Lexis.] In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with the Facebook Account Identified by the Username Aaron.Alexis That Is Stored at Premises Controlled by Facebook, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185850 (D. D.C. November 26, 2013):

Continue reading →

By installing a P2P program on his computer and leaving it on, defendant opened his computer files to the world and waived any reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer. Relying on software settings that don’t work for privacy is inadequate. Rideout v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 779, 753 S.E.2d 595 (2014):

Continue reading →

The state can’t rely on parole status to justify a bad search when the officer didn’t know that defendant was on parole. Also, the state’s inevitable discovery argument was expressly waived in the trial court. People v. Coleman, 2013 IL App (1st) 130030, 2 N.E.3d 1221 (2013).

Defendant had no standing to challenge the arrest of codefendants or the search of their car, which was valid anyway under the automobile exception and inventory. United States v. Acosta-Colón, 741 F.3d 179 (1st Cir. 2013).*

Eight minute delay for drug dog was not unreasonable where the reasonable suspicion for the detention was the officer’s reasonable belief the occupants of the car were under the influence from their glazed eyes and slow movements. State v. Valenti, 2013-Ohio-5564, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5811 (9th Dist. December 18, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped for not signaling, and the officer ran his DL. Three minutes into the stop he asked again “whether there was anything in the truck that he needed to know about.” Defendant consented to a search saying there were no drugs in the vehicle. Instead, the officer found everything for a meth lab other than pseudoephedrine. The consent was valid. “Thus, an officer is not required to have articulable facts to justify additional questioning unrelated to the initial justification for the stop. Rather, the issue is whether the additional questioning measurably extends the duration of the stop. In this case, it did not.” State v. McCleary, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 263 (March 11, 2014).

Probable cause existed for defendant’s arrest as being a lookout for a drug operation. He also consented to a search. State v. Mowler, 2014-Ohio-831, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 803 (8th Dist. March 6, 2014).*

Officers had probable cause for defendant’s stop and arrest based on wiretaps and surveillance. What the officers did not have didn’t undermine the probable cause. Probable cause was also separately shown for searches of property. United States v. Groves, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29593 (S.D. Ohio March 7, 2014).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for stipulating to admission of DVD of a traffic stop where the defense argument was that the video supported the defense. State v. Harlow, 2014-Ohio-864, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 814 (4th Dist. February 26, 2014).*

Defendant fit the “drug courier profile” with a one-way ticket for cash bought two hours before departure. He was stopped and questioned in the Philadelphia airport. He consented to a search of his suitcase, and heroin was found. A search warrant for his cell phone was also obtained. “The information on the cell phone and the text messages show that defendant lied to the agents, and also had familiarity with drug dealings. From all of this evidence, the Court concludes that the jury was warranted in finding the defendant guilty.” United States v. Soto-Gonzalez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30044 (E.D. Pa. February 28, 2014).*

Officers responding to a domestic call at defendant’s apartment removed him and talked to his wife who consented to a search. The seizure of a rifle from the apartment was waived during the suppression hearing when it was expressed that only the legality of the entry was at issue. People v. Britton, 2014 NY Slip Op 25, 113 A.D.3d 1101, 977 N.Y.S.2d 851 (4th Dept. 2014).*

Defendant’s arrest warrant was not issued on a false statement or perjury. Even if it was, defendant’s consent was sufficiently attenuated from it. United States v. Holmes, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 415 (W.D. Tenn. January 3, 2014).*

Officers with an arrest warrant had good reason to believe that defendant was in the house despite his family members’ denials he was there. The attic was subject to protective sweep because defendant had hidden there. “[I]t then follows that the officers’ plain view observation of the blue lunch box-like container with white powder on the outside was not improper.” United States v. Dixon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182232 (W.D. Mo. November 18, 2013).*

Defendant at first insisted on a warrant to search his car. Later he confessed. This knowledge of his rights shows that his consent was voluntary. McDonald v. State, 130 So. 3d 102 (Miss. App. 2013):

Continue reading →

Despite marijuana small quantity decriminalization in Massachusetts, the overwhelming odor of unburnt marijuana coupled with a small quantity in a bag and cash in the car was probable cause for a search warrant. Commonwealth v. Fontaine, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 699, 3 N.E.3d 82 (2014):

Continue reading →

Politico: Judge orders NSA to preserve call data by Josh Gerstein:

Continue reading →

Wired.com: Florida Cops’ Secret Weapon: Warrantless Cellphone Tracking by Kim Zetter:

Continue reading →

Defendant was stopped based on a CI’s providing police an exemplar of counterfeit money that he said came from defendant. While the CI later proved to be “eccentric” the information was sufficiently corroborated and believable to stop defendant. The police ultimately got a search warrant for the car, but that didn’t mean they had doubts about the PC for the search. The automobile exception would have applied. United States v. Silva, 742 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014):

Continue reading →

ACLU v. Clapper, 959 F. Supp. 2d 724 (S.D. N.Y. 2013), posted here.