Knock-and-talk at a motel room, where the officer was following up a tip from an unknown man that "crackheads" were staying in a particular room at the motel, brought a woman to the door. The officer asked about the man laying there, who was apparently asleep. The officer entered uninvited to wake the man up, and this was an illegal entry. Reed v. State, 944 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. August 16, 2006).

Grandfather with whom defendant lived could not consent to search of a backpack in defendant's room because the government failed to show that the grandfather had actual or apparent authority to consent to searching it. It had the burden of proof on that issue. Glenn v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 556, 633 S.E.2d 205 (August 15, 2006).

IAC claim denied where it alleged that defense counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a search issue and first post-conviction counsel failed to raise it too. It was raised in a successor petition, so the issue was defaulted. State v. Gray, 2006 Wisc. App. LEXIS 745 (August 15, 2006) (per curiam).*

The police do not have to completely investigate and find all they can before seeking a search warrant. The question is always whether they showed PC on the totality of circumstances on what they presented. United States v. Shields, 458 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. August 16, 2006):

Whether the FBI could have provided more information is not the benchmark, and other courts of appeals have rejected similar arguments. Gourde, 440 F.3d at 1073 n.5 ("[T]he benchmark is not what the FBI 'could have' done. HN8An affidavit may support probable cause even if the government fails to obtain potentially dispositive information."); United States v. Ozar, 50 F.3d 1440, 1446 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that trial court "erred in focusing [its] Franks v. Delaware analysis on what the FBI could have learned with more investigation."). For purposes of our analysis, it is of no import that the FBI could have discovered more corroborating evidence, such as actual downloads, so long as the valid information it supplies satisfies the "fair probability" standard articulated in Gates. 462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332.

Defendant during traffic stop was giving inconsistent answers to questions, and he was asked for consent and he agreed. He was also told he could ask questions at any time during the search. United States v. Macedo, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56501 (D. Neb. August 11, 2006).*

Officer had RS for investigative detention of the defendant from nervousness, being on a drug route, did not know the name of the owner of the vehicle he was driving, too much luggage for the trip, didn't know where he was staying when he got to Kansas City, and had to make a call when he got there to know where to go. United States v. Olivares-Campos, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56621 (D. Kan. July 31, 2006).*

Where the allegations in a motion to suppress attack the search warrant as lacking probable cause, no hearing is required to consider the issue. United States v. Evans, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56564 (D. Nev. July 10, 2006) ("Because the issues raised in the motion concern only the contents of the affidavit and search warrant, no factual issues need be resolved. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.").

Citizen informant who was eyewitness and gave a 33 minute taped interview was credible. The fact that he could be prosecuted for providing false information in a police investigation supports his credibility. Id.

The NSA's broad wiretapping program that sweeps into its perview non-terrorism suspects, including journalists, lawyers, and scholars, was declared unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan. American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency, 438 F.Supp.2d 754 (E.D. Mich. August 17, 2006). The opinion appears here. It was a resounding defeat for the Bush Administration.

CNN.com summarizes as follows:

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

She went on to say that "The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders." (bracketed material added)

The NYTimes.com article is here, the LATimes.com article is here, and the Detroit Free Press is here.

The Washington Post article is here, and also adds this quote from the opinion:

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. " . . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

Judge Diggs was appointed by President Carter in 1979.

Perhaps not ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court's biggest national security search case was United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972). The government lost that case, too.