You can't even drink in some places without NYPD knowing about it: NYTimes: Police Had Unusual Access to Nightclub Data, Suit Says by Russ Buettner:

For more than a year, the New York Police Department had ready access to a database that held the scanned identification document of every person who entered a large SoHo nightclub, whether those people were engaged in criminal activity or simply socializing with friends, according to a lawsuit.

The club, Greenhouse, has had a history of violence and other problems. Faced with the prospect of being shut down, the owners signed an agreement with the Police Department in March 2011 that required them to scan the ID of everyone who passed through the club’s doors. The data was to be kept for at least 30 days, and provided to the police upon request.

An anticipatory search warrant by an administrative agency must first be challenged through the administrative review process. In Re The Matter of a Search Warrant Regarding the Following Real Estate, Sensient Flavors, LLC v. Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 969 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. App. 2012):

The Indiana Commissioner of Labor filed a petition for an anticipatory search warrant in order to conduct an administrative inspection of Sensient Flavors LLC's Indianapolis facility. Sensient opposed the search warrant and was successful in getting it quashed. The trial court later issued an amended search warrant that was more restrictive than the original. Although the search of Sensient's facility has been completed, Sensient appeals the issuance of the amended search warrant, arguing that it was not supported by probable cause and unreasonable because it did not contain any limitations regarding the scope or manner of the search. Concluding that Sensient has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, we dismiss this appeal.

. . .

In In re Establishment Inspection of Kohler Company, 935 F.2d 810 (7th Cir. 1991), Kohler Company, a Wisconsin company, sought to quash an administrative search warrant issued to OSHA on grounds that OSHA lacked probable cause to inspect its plant. Like this case, OSHA argued that because the inspection had already been completed, the issue was moot. The Seventh Circuit, however, did not address OSHA's mootness argument because it found that Kohler had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Id. at 812. Specifically, the court found that according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), it was "without jurisdiction to consider Kohler's challenge to the warrant that authorized OSHA's inspection." Id. The court noted that Section 10(a) of the OSH Act "requires parties to contest OSHA citations before the Review Commission before obtaining judicial review" and Section 11(a) provides that "no objection that has not been argued before the Commission shall be considered by the court ...." Id. (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660). Accordingly, the court concluded, "We cannot, therefore, review a motion to suppress evidence ... that has not been presented to the Review Commission. ... To address Kohler's motion to quash now would enable Kohler to circumvent the statutory exhaustion requirement." Id.

The court then highlighted the importance of exhausting administrative remedies, that is, it "protects the autonomy of administrative agencies, respects administrative expertise, facilitates judicial review by ensuring a well-developed factual record, and promotes judicial economy by avoiding piece-meal review of cases and by giving the agency the opportunity to resolve the case to the parties' mutual satisfaction without judicial interference." Id. Particularly relevant to this case, the court explained: ...

The warrant for DNA in this case completely failed to provide any showing of probable cause to obtain the sample. Remanded for development of the record on inevitable discovery. State v. Jenkins, 398 S.C. 215, 727 S.E.2d 761 (2012), withdrawn and refiled June 20, 2012:

First, the affidavit must set forth facts as to why the police believe the suspect whose DNA is sought is the person who committed the crime. ... The affidavit in this case fails to meet the requirement of showing why the police believed Jenkins committed the crime.

Second, the affidavit does not set forth the source of the facts alleged in it. ... Similarly, the affidavit in this case is defective because it contains no indication as to where the detective obtained the information.

Nevertheless, the State argues that because this case involves a sex crime, the magistrate could reasonably have inferred the victim was the source of the information. We disagree. The law does not allow the State to justify a bodily intrusion on the possibility that a magistrate made a correct inference as to the source of the information in the affidavit. Rather, "[m]ere conclusory statements which give the magistrate no basis to make a judgment regarding probable cause are insufficient." Smith , 301 S.C. at 373, 392 S.E.2d at 183. Moreover, the complete absence of a source for any of the information makes a variety of scenarios possible. For example, the detective could have pieced together the information from other officers, the victim's neighbors, or even an anonymous tip. This is precisely what the law forbids a magistrate from doing. The magistrate's "'action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.'" Id. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 239).

Third, the affidavit does not contain even a conclusory assertion that the information or its source is reliable. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 (stating the circumstances a magistrate must consider include the "veracity" of the persons supplying the information on which the warrant is based). "Without any information concerning the reliability of the informant, the inferences from the facts which lead to the complaint will be drawn not by a neutral and detached magistrate, as the Constitution requires, but instead, by a police officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime ...." State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 248, 395 S.E.2d 167, 169 (1990) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Viewing these deficiencies together and considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the police did not provide the magistrate a substantial basis on which to find probable cause to believe Jenkins committed this crime.

How bad does an affidavit have to be to fail to meet Gates? Looking at this website, not many. One problem with the nearly 30 years since Gates is that it essentially has condoned officers being slackers and not supporting PC they way they used to have to. Still, magistrates aren't doing their job. In the last six months I've seen search warrant affidavits in my practice that are just defaults to the police conclusions that there would be something found. The officers didn't even try to show probable cause and the magistrate still rubberstamped it. What are they there for? To stand between the citizen and the government if there is no PC, not be a rubberstamp.

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim that he was subjected to an anal cavity search that led to finding tobacco apparently led to his prosecution, and Younger abstention would be applied until the criminal case ran its course. Mason v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88441 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2012).

Officers had probable cause as to defendant’s premises from controlled delivery of a DHL parcel with 700 grams of cocaine that went out the back door and over a fence. Officers did a knock-and-talk and the man answering the door fled inside. Officers gave chase and calmed the situation down, holstering their guns. That was exigent circumstances, akin to hot pursuit, given probable cause. After a conversational, nonconfrontational meeting, consent to search the premises was given. United States v. Brache, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88775 (S.D. Fla. June 25, 2012).*

There is no valid state justification for taking a DNA sample from a juvenile before adjudication and putting it in CODIS. If taken for a serious crime, it can’t be tested until after adjudication as a delinquent. Mario W. v. Kaipio, 230 Ariz. 122, 281 P.3d 476 (2012), rev'g 228 Ariz. 207, 265 P.3d 389 (App. 2011):

¶15 No Arizona or United States Supreme Court case, however, addresses the constitutionality of suspicionless pre-conviction DNA testing. The case law elsewhere is sharply divided. Maryland's highest court recently found that DNA profiling of arrestees violated the Fourth Amendment. King v. State, 42 A.3d 549, 580 (Md. 2012). Other courts have also so held, distinguishing the post-conviction cases because arrestees have a higher expectation of privacy than convicted felons. See, e.g., Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847, 858 (9th Cir. 2009); In re Welfare of C.T.L., 722 N.W.2d 484, 492 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

¶16 Several other courts, however, have found DNA profiling of arrestees reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Haskell, 669 F.3d at 1065 (2-1 decision); United States v. Mitchell, 652 F.3d 387, 416 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (8-6 decision); United States v. Pool, 621 F.3d 1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2010), reh'g en banc granted, 646 F.3d 659 (9th Cir.), and vacated, 659 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2011); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 650 S.E.2d 702, 705-06 (Va. 2007). These courts have found that the government's interests in identifying arrestees and solving crimes outweigh an arrestee's diminished expectations of privacy.

¶17 Most courts considering the constitutionality of DNA sampling and profiling have employed the totality of the circumstances test. See Mitchell, 652 F.3d at 403 ("We and the majority of circuits -- the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia -- have endorsed a totality of the circumstances approach."). But see Amerson, 483 F.3d at 78 (applying "special needs test"); Green v. Berge, 354 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2004) (same). The parties do not dispute the applicability of the totality of the circumstances test, and we therefore analyze the Arizona scheme under that rubric.

. . .

¶32 Thus, we find no state interest sufficient to justify the serious intrusion on the privacy interests of the Juveniles occasioned by the second search -- the extraction of the DNA profile from the buccal swab before adjudication or failure to appear. The swab remains available for processing thereafter, and no exigency exists warranting an earlier suspicionless search.

Defendant who claims his voice was not a recording had no standing to challenge the “search,” if it was one, that obtained the recordings. United States v. White, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89020 (E.D. Tex. June 26, 2012).*

Having seen criminal activity going on in an open garage, officers could approach as any visitor to look in. Having seen criminal activity, “[t]he Agents could then lawfully enter the open Garage to investigate further the apparent criminal activity.” United States v. Contreras, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87921 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2012).*

The specific ground that this traffic stop was unreasonable was not raised in the district court, so plain error applies, and this wasn’t. United States v. Castro, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13147 (5th Cir. June 27, 2012).*

In a rare clearly erroneous finding, the Fourth Circuit finds no support at all for the district court's [overly solicitous] finding of probable cause. The speeding stop here was without probable cause, and the district court’s conclusion that the officer could estimate speed at 75 in a 70 zone, intentionally not using radar, was clearly erroneous. The finding that the officer was trained to estimate speeds was unsupported by the record. The finding that the officer’s inability to determine distances also made the findings “absurd” because time and distance are required to measure speed. United States v. Sowards, 690 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2012):

However, the Fourth Amendment does not allow, and the case law does not support, blanket approval for the proposition that an officer’s visual speed estimate, in and of itself, will always suffice as a basis for probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. Instead, for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the question remains one of reasonableness. Critically, and as further explained below, the reasonableness of an officer’s visual speed estimate depends, in the first instance, on whether a vehicle’s speed is estimated to be in significant excess or slight excess of the legal speed limit. If slight, then additional indicia of reliability are necessary to support the reasonableness of the officer’s visual estimate.

The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant for “ATM skimming,” but he did not have sufficient evidence to frisk him. Defendant’s own curious and false answers about what he was doing could be checked out, and that made the 3-4 hour detention before his arrest reasonable. United States v. Pascu, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88071 (D. Mass. June 26, 2012):

Pascu nevertheless argues that the duration of the stop was unreasonable. Pascu was first stopped sometime after 2 p.m., and was formally arrested by all accounts some three or four hours later. From the testimony of the officers, it appears that all of the time between the beginning of the encounter and the formal arrest was reasonably necessary to the developing investigation related to the initial Terry stop. Officer Allen needed time to assess what was going on when he first stopped Pascu and started speaking to him. As Pascu gave answers about what he was doing there and whom he was meeting, Officer Allen had reason to believe that Pascu's answers were not truthful and were evasive. When other officers arrived, Officer Allen had to get them up to speed about what was happening and they began searching for the satchel and sunglasses that had been reported by the caller.

Detectives who later arrived had to call bank security to get confirmation that the ATM appeared tampered with and to get surveillance photographs to determine whether Pascu was the individual who had installed the "skimmer" device and pinhole camera on the ATM. Detective O'Connor needed time to view the photographs and to cross-reference addresses found in the Chrysler with other ATMs in the region. Finally, because the detectives were unable to remove the "skimmer" from the ATM, they had to wait until Special Agent Seidel arrived and removed it. All of these investigative steps were "reasonably responsive to the circumstances justifying the stop in the first place as augmented by information gleaned by the officer[s] during the stop." Chaney, 647 F.3d at 409 (quotation and citation omitted). Pascu's lawful Terry detention did not become a de facto arrest because of its duration.

Heck barred the claim of one plaintiff who had habeas relief available to him but not the claims of two others who did not have habeas available after their convictions. Bishop v. County of Macon, 484 Fed. Appx. 753 (4th Cir. June 22, 2012).

For a 2255 Franks challenge, a detailed affidavit of falsity of the affidavit is required for the petition, and petitioner failed to provide it. Dismuke v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88077 (E.D. Wis. June 26, 2012).*

Consent here was limited to looking for pistols in the house and didn’t include the cars outside. However, the plain view through the windows gave probable cause. United States v. Kelly, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87653 (W.D. La. May 25, 2012), adopted 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87670 (W.D. La. June 22, 2012).*