The District of Kansas puts the burden on the defendant to prove that the inventory of his car was unlawful, when it was allegedly only parked, after his stop, more than 12" from the curb. No mention that the officer could not have pulled it over closer and left it. United States v. Calvin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83037 (D. Kan. June 15, 2012).* Shifting the burden:

The burden is on defendant to prove that the challenged search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1124 (10th Cir. 2011). ...

... Further, defendant conceded that department towing policy required Officer Eckel to complete a full inventory search of the vehicle, including the glove compartment. Defendant has not provided any basis to suppress the evidence that resulted from the inventory search of his vehicle.

Maybe the defendant should have lost on the merits, but he at least could have had the correct burden of proof applied. If the court dealt with the merits appropriately, the analysis would be completely different. Really lame.

This was decided by a USDJ, not a Magistrate Judge, and it's just completely wrong in its approach.

Defendant was suspected of running a reselling fraud on eBay, and a search warrant was obtained for all his records pertaining to interstate transportation of stolen property. The search warrant was sufficiently particular and not overbroad. United States v. Kuc, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82398 (D. Mass. June 14, 2012):

1. The First Prong: Evidence of Other Contraband

The degree to which evidence of contraband is believed to be on the premises is largely connected to the pervasiveness of the illegal activity being investigated. ...

Pervasiveness for purposes of the first prong is not limited to large organizations or entities. United States v. Falon, 959 F.2d 1143, 1148 (1st Cir. 1992). Thus, in United States v. Morris, the First Circuit found that two illegal drug transactions at the same residential address gave the magistrate judge "sufficient evidence to believe that a large collection of similar contraband would be present in the premises that were to be searched pursuant to the warrant." 977 F.2d at 681.

2. The Second Prong: Distinguishing Contraband

As to the second prong, the principle that emerges from the First Circuit's caselaw is that a warrant is insufficiently particular if the suspected crime being investigated and leading to the warrant application was substantially narrower than the scope of the warrant that ultimately issued. For example, the First Circuit held in United States v. Roche that where an affidavit in support of the warrant application made clear that only motor vehicle insurance fraud was being investigated, a warrant that authorized the seizure of documents pertaining to all types of insurance was overbroad because it could have been more narrowly tailored to only authorize the seizure of documents pertaining to motor vehicle insurance. 614 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir. 1980). In other words, where there is "information available to the agents which could have served to narrow the scope of the warrant and protect the defendant['s] personal rights" but the information is either withheld from the magistrate or not included in the warrant, "the warrant [is] inadequate." Klein, 565 F.2d at 190.

But where the warrant's list of items to be seized is tailored to the specific crime being investigated, it will survive an overbreadth challenge under the second prong. For example, the First Circuit upheld a warrant against a particularity challenge where it provided for the seizure of all documents relating to a list of seventeen individuals that constituted evidence of the specific suspected crime of conspiring to defraud the Social Security Administration. United States v. Bithoney, 631 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1980).

Even a broad search warrant authorizing the seizure of all of a business's records may be sufficiently particular if the fraud alleged is pervasive such that most, if not all, of the business is suspected of being linked to a mail and wire fraud scheme. This is intimately connected to the scope of the fraud which factors heavily into the first prong analysis. See Brien, 617 F.2d at 306-08. In Brien, as noted above, affidavits submitted with the warrant application demonstrated that the fraud in the business was pervasive. The First Circuit held that "where there ... exists a pervasive scheme to defraud, all the business records of an enterprise may be seized, if they are, as here, accurately described so that the executing officers have no need to exercise their own judgment as to what should be seized." Id. at 309 (emphasis added).

Defendant was stopped for jaywalking and he admitted having marijuana which was produced. The officer conducted a patdown and felt something that was indiscernible, but was clearly not a weapon. A search produced crack, and the search was unjustified. The defendant had been stopped the day before by the same officer and apparently endured the same search. State v. Byrd, 2012 Ohio 2659, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2336 (2d Dist. June 15, 2012).*

Defendant lost suppression motion apparently because she thought the state had to justify the seizure of every item in the search warrant. It was seizure under a warrant, and the defense had the burden. State v. Crumpler, 2012 Ohio 2601, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2288 (9th Dist. June 13, 2012).*

Defendant’s vehicle was properly ordered towed where it was left blocking in a private business’s driveway. State v. Neal, 2012 Ohio 2609; 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2295 (9th Dist. June 13, 2012).*

A DV report described a suspect with a black shirt with skulls on it. Defendant was the only one around with skulls on it, so the stop was valid. State v. Will, 2012 Ohio 2616, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2300 (9th Dist. June 13, 2012).*

“Good to go” of a stopped motorist but followed by questions led to effective consent. United States v. Rodriguez, 485 Fed. Appx. 16 (6th Cir. 2012):

At the end of the discussion, Diggs told Rodriguez that he was "good to go." Immediately after making that statement, however, Diggs said, "Let me ask you something," and proceeded to ask Rodriguez additional questions about his travel plans, as well as questions about his arrest history and whether there was anything illegal in his van. After approximately four minutes of questioning, Diggs asked Rodriguez for permission to search his van, and Rodriguez consented. Ultimately, law enforcement officers recovered two kilograms of heroin and ten kilograms of cocaine from a hidden compartment in the van.

Officers responding to an anonymous shots fired call entered defendant’s backyard and found him on his deck. The search of his bag violated the Fourth Amendment and Tennessee Constitution because the officers entered the curtilage without exigent circumstances. State v. Anderson, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 385 (June 12, 2012):

Anderson's deck was plainly within the curtilage of his home for the purposes of both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7. Considering the Fourth Amendment test, the deck was immediately attached to the house, and a back door opened to it. Although the area was not included within an enclosure, it was largely surrounded by trees. A grill was on the deck, indicating that Anderson used the area for cooking. The many toys indicate that young children used the area to play. Roberson's testimony indicates that Anderson used the area to relax and entertain guests. Additionally, the area was behind the house and not visible to passers-by on the road. All these factors support the conclusion that the deck was intimately tied to the home, and the deck, therefore, is protected under the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Hardesty v. Hamburg Twp., 461 F.3d 646, 652 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding rear deck to be protected curtilage under similar facts). Furthermore, this same evidence, particularly the nature of the activities that occurred on the deck, demonstrates that the deck was an area to which the activity of home life extended. Consequently, Anderson also enjoyed the protection of article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution while on his deck. Because the deputies intruded on this constitutionally protected area without a warrant, they violated the mandates of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions.

This investigation started with an anonymous informant, but the police then received information from an identified informant who gave predictive information that panned out. The police could rely on that information and it gave cause for a stop when defendant was leaving a supposed drug deal. State v. Miller, 2012 WI 61, 341 Wis. 2d 307, 815 N.W.2d 349 (2012).*

Plaintiff pled to DUI and he was awaiting placement in an alcohol program. Despite the court order, officers went to his house and arrested him and held him for a month without a valid court order. The district court failed to conduct a proper qualified immunity analysis, so the judgment is vacated and remanded. Handt v. Lynch, 681 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2012).*

When the challenged evidence was never offered to the finder of fact, there is no search and seizure question for the appellate court to decide. Fuller v. State, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 381 (June 12, 2012).

Issue: “Should Article 1, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution be interpreted to require individualized probable cause of a code violation in a particular building, as a prerequisite to the issuance of an administrative search warrant, even though that position was rejected by the United States Supreme Court when it interpreted the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution 45 years ago?”

Syllabus: “Under Camara v. Mun. Ct., 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), reasonable inspections of rental property, conducted pursuant to warrants issued after a balancing of the need to protect public health and safety against the degree of intrusion upon privacy interests, may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without a showing of individualized probable cause to believe that a particular dwelling is in violation of minimum standards prescribed by a building or safety code. A challenged Minnesota municipal ordinance that (a) requires advance notice to property owners and tenants; (b) limits inspections to ordinary business hours; (c) imposes restrictions on the scope of inspections; (d) prohibits the disclosure of information to law enforcement agencies unless an exception applies; and (e) requires a showing of reasonableness to obtain a warrant from a judicial officer is not facially invalid under Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.” McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 816 N.W.2d 636 (Minn. App. 2012).