Defendant’s parole condition that he submit to searches of his e-mail account was valid. Sullivan v. Bunting, 2012 Ohio 3923, 133 Ohio St. 3d 81, 975 N.E.2d 999 (2012) (per curiam).

Plaintiff was shot during a no-knock raid on his house. Factual disputes remained on whether the officer procuring the warrant made false statements in obtaining the warrant, and, thus, qualified immunity was denied. Betker v. Gomez, 692 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2012).*

Movant outside of a criminal case file a motion for return of money seized, but it was without jurisdiction. Brown v. United States, 692 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2012).*

A search warrant for a computer with child pornography at defendant’s address included searching an RV on the premises using a wireless router. The RV was being used as a residence, and the warrant included the house and vehicles on the premises. Hines v. State, 317 Ga. App. 541, 731 S.E.2d 782 (2012).*

Petitioner’s vague allegation that defense counsel talked to an uncalled “somebody” about his arrest wasn’t shown to have an effect on the outcome of the litigation about the arrest. Dunston v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125865 (N.D. Tex. September 4, 2012).

Defendant lacked standing in a rental car when it was searched. It was rented by another person’s mother so he could go to work, and the other person loaned it to defendant who used it and returned it. It was searched thereafter when he gave it up. State v. Brown, 382 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. App. 2012).*

Firemen responding to a call of an unresponsive man found defendant passed out at the wheel of a parked car and finally awoke him, also seeing a firearm between his legs. The “search” and entry into the car was reasonable. Also, the car was stolen, and there’s no standing in a stolen car. United States v. Overton, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125043 (S.D. Ohio September 4, 2012).*

The trial court’s findings were equivocal about driving over the centerline, and the appellate court erred in making its own factfinding. Remanded for real factfinding. State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 286 P.3d 554 (2012).*

Smell of raw marijuana coming from a car when it was stopped and seeing a “marijuana ‘shake’” was probable cause to search the trunk. State v. Bonham, 2012 Ohio 3982, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3513 (5th Dist. August 28, 2012).*

Government’s motion to compel buccal swabs is seeking a search, and reasonableness should be presented by the government through a search warrant application, not a motion for samples. United States v. Hardrick, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125559 (E.D. La. September 5, 2012):

Because obtaining a saliva sample is a search, the Government must first request a search warrant. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968)("[T]he police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure."); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 (1966) ("Search warrants are ordinarily required for searches of dwellings, and, absent emergency, no less could be required where intrusions into the human body are concerned."). The Government has not identified any exigency that would permit dispensing with the warrant requirement. A warrant is therefore required before the Government may obtain saliva samples from the defendant. Accordingly, Government's motion to compel is premature and will not be granted by this Court.

The City of LA can't arbitrarily seize unabandoned property of the denizens of the City's “Skid Row” district without affording due process. The appeal from the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court is denied. “The City has ... asked us to declare that the unattended property of homeless persons is uniquely beyond the reach of the Constitution, so that the government may seize and destroy with impunity the worldly possessions of a vulnerable group in our society. Because even the most basic reading of our Constitution prohibits such a result, the City’s appeal is DENIED.” Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012):

Appellees, nine homeless individuals living in the “Skid Row” district of Los Angeles, charge that the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by seizing and immediately destroying their unabandoned personal possessions, temporarily left on public sidewalks while Appellees attended to necessary tasks such as eating, showering, and using restrooms. Finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits of these claims, the district court enjoined the City from confiscating and summarily destroying unabandoned property in Skid Row. The narrow injunction bars the City from:

1. Seizing property in Skid Row absent an objectively reasonable belief that it is abandoned, presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, or is evidence of a crime, or contraband; and

2. Absent an immediate threat to public health or safety, destruction of said seized property without maintaining it in a secure location for a period of less than 90 days.

Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1020 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

The district court expanded upon the great leeway the City retains to protect public health and safety, noting: “The City [is] able to lawfully seize and detain property, as well as remove hazardous debris and other trash; issuance of the injunction ... merely prevent[s the City] from unlawfully seizing and destroying personal property that is not abandoned without providing any meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 1019.

In this appeal, the City does not challenge the scope of the injunction, nor does it ask us to modify its terms; instead, the City argues only that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating Appellees’ claims.

We conclude that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect homeless persons from government seizure and summary destruction of their unabandoned, but momentarily unattended, personal property.

. . .

This appeal does not concern the power of the federal courts to constrain municipal governments from addressing the deep and pressing problem of mass homelessness or to otherwise fulfill their obligations to maintain public health and safety. In fact, this court would urge Los Angeles to do more to resolve that problem and to fulfill that obligation. Nor does this appeal concern any purported right to use public sidewalks as personal storage facilities. The City has instead asked us to declare that the unattended property of homeless persons is uniquely beyond the reach of the Constitution, so that the government may seize and destroy with impunity the worldly possessions of a vulnerable group in our society. Because even the most basic reading of our Constitution prohibits such a result, the City’s appeal is DENIED.

Courthouse News Service: Homeless Still Have Rights to Property Left Unattended by Tim Hull.