Defendant’s failure to renew his motion to suppress after trial testimony became pertinent precludes use of the trial testimony to attack the suppression finding. United States v. Howard, 687 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2012):

Whether Howard's theorem on the chronology of VanZandt's actions is or is not accurate, we need not say. VanZandt did not testify at the suppression hearing; he only testified at trial. Similarly, the photograph of the cigarette was only introduced at trial. Although Howard acknowledges this point, he nonetheless urges us to consider the testimony and photograph in our review of the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and, in particular, the court's factual finding on the search's timing. While it is true that we may consider evidence adduced at trial when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we may do so only if the defendant renewed his suppression motion at trial. See United States v. Scott, 566 F.3d 242, 245 (1st Cir. 2009); United States v. de Jesus-Rios, 990 F.2d 672, 675 n.2 (1st Cir. 1993). Howard did not renew his motion at trial and so our review does not include VanZandt's testimony or the photograph. Our examination of the propriety of the suppression ruling is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. See Scott, 566 F.3d at 245. At the suppression hearing, documentary evidence, in the form of the grand jury transcript, Knowles' statement to police, her consent waiver, and photographs of the house, was introduced. Additionally, Knowles and six Springfield police officers testified. The officers were those involved in arresting Howard, obtaining Knowles' consent, searching the house, booking Howard, taking Knowles' statement, or some combination of these things. This evidence, taken as a whole, supports the court's finding that consent preceded the search.

WaPo: Outcry erupts after San Francisco mayor considers stop-and-frisk policing amid crime spike by AP:

Mayor Ed Lee said he wanted to spark a discussion about a spike in violent crime when he mentioned that he was considering a controversial stop-and-frisk policy used by police in New York, Philadelphia and some other big cities.

Instead, he has heard an outcry from city officials, civil liberties groups and residents who were shocked that the mayor would explore such a strategy in the international tourist mecca known for its uber-liberal outlook.

. . .

Lee recently told a newspaper editorial board that San Francisco police officers need stop-and-frisk authority to get guns off the streets, and he was willing to consider what other cities were doing after his city was wracked by 10 homicides in June — its deadliest month in nearly four years.

ABAJ.com: It Isn’t Necessarily Big Brother, But Somebody Is Potentially Watching, Virtually All the Time by Martha Neil:

Think your posts on Facebook are private? Think again.

It's only a computer scanning them, under ordinary circumstances, but certain content could flag a post for human review if criminal conduct is suspected, according to Reuters and Slate.

Tempted to say you're hard at work when you're not or for some other reason claim to be in a fictitious location? Government investigators can potentially use either your smartphone, or even an ordinary cellphone to pinpoint where you were at any given time. Although civil rights advocates are arguing that a warrant is required, global positioning system software within smartphones can't be shut off even when the phone isn't live, recent news articles point out.

Information from an identified citizen informant was sufficient for a stop for bank robbery, and probable cause developed from there. United States v. Elmore, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98269 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2012).*

The officers reasonably believed the consenter had authority since she was the owner of the property and said that defendant was no longer there. United States v. Deloney, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98851 (W.D. Mo. June 20, 2012).*

After a consent search on 2254, the defendant did not show that anything remotely suggested that the consenter did not have authority to so so, so he would have lost on the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue, and his lawyer couldn’t be ineffective. Garrett v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98966 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2012).*

Officer’s deliberate failure to turn on recording equipment affects the court’s view of his credibility that the defendant’s vehicle hit the fog line three times without hitting the rumble strips next to the fog line. United States v. Younis, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98774 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2012)*:

As I noted in my comments at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the failure, which I deem deliberate, not to activate the record function manually greatly affects my view of the trooper's credibility. Particularly given the fact that recording continued for several minutes as another trooper was driving the truck to the post, the failure to record from the outset, or, at the latest on observing the first lane violation, is inexplicable.

There was ample recording capacity in the unit - indeed, none of the six hours' capacity had been used during the trooper's first six hours on duty. The failure to turn on the recording function when there was no reason not to do so substantially undercuts the credibility of the trooper's testimony.

Unless recorded, allegations of repeated lane violations, especially within a relatively short distance, as the trooper claimed he saw happen, strain credulity. Like the notorious "dropsy" cases of yore, there is something inherently implausible in this sort of contention.

--Through the Wormhole, Science Channel (July 11, 2012)

And 99% of it is utterly meaningless.

A Los Angeles ordinance requiring motel operators to open their registration records to the police does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Patel v. City of Los Angeles, 686 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012) (2-1):

Plaintiffs Naranjibhai Patel and Ramilaben Patel are owners and operators of motels in Los Angeles. They challenge the constitutionality of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) § 41.49, which requires operators of hotels in the City to maintain certain guest registry information and to make that information available to police officers on request. Appellants contend that LAMC § 41.49 is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because it authorizes unreasonable invasions of their private business records without a warrant or pursuant to any recognized warrant exception. Following a bench trial on stipulated evidence, the district court held that the ordinance was reasonable and granted judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the hotel operators did not establish that they had a privacy interest in the guest registry information.

A facial challenge is “the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987); see Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008) (“i.e., that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications”). That the ordinance might operate unconstitutionally under some circumstances is not enough to render it invalid against a facial challenge. The Patels have not satisfied that high standard. As a result, this facial challenge to the ordinance fails. We affirm.

See Orin Kerr on Volokh Conspiracy: Fourth Amendment Facial Challenges and Access to Hotel Guest Lists.

arstechnica: ACLU: "reasonable suspicion" not good enough for GPS tracking; Advocacy group files an amicus brief that could provide a follow-up to Jones by Cyrus Farivar:

If you’re a student of the privacy and tech law worlds (or you just read Ars) then you’re probably familiar with last year’s Supreme Court decision, Jones v. United States. Earlier this year, the nine justices unanimously agreed that placing a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car without a warrant was unconstitutional. That decision continues to have ripple effects throughout the privacy law world, and likely will for years to come.

However, as we pointed out in our January 2012 coverage, the justices disagreed amongst themselves about why it violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. One wing of the court found that installing the GPS device was an unwarranted physical trespass on private property and therefore illegal. The minority wing found the practice unconstitutional as it violated the doctrine known as “a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

LawFare: Whole Body Scanners, the Fourth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedures Act by Paul Rosenzweig:

Whole body scanners (also known as Advanced Imaging Technology or AIT) are those new millimeter wave and backscatter scanners that the Department of Homeland Security is deploying in airports around the country — what some people call the “naked machine.” Today, the efforts of some to have the scanners removed took an interesting turn — with this mandamus petition filed by the Electronic Privacy and Information Center.

DHS began the deployment of AIT scanners in earnest in the aftermath of the failed Christmas bomb plot a couple of years ago. The government asserted that the scanners were safe and that their new imaging technology would assist in detecting bomb threats to aviation. Critics principally challenged the deployment as a violation of privacy and civil liberties — a challenge grounded, ultimately, in the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.