None of the defendants had standing to challenge placement of a GPS device on a cargo van that belonged to none of them. United States v. Martinez-Turcio, 494 Fed. Appx. 354 (4th Cir. 2012).*

An isolated comment that the defendant might want to talk to an attorney before consenting to a search of his computer did not justify a mistrial. (It was also inherent in the defense questioning.) State v. Abraham, 2012 Ohio 4248, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3732 (9th Dist. September 19, 2012).*

Defendant’s furtive movements in the car and then hesitancy in getting out of the car and putting his hands on his head justified a protective frisk. The trial court erred in suppressing. State v. Wade, 2012 Ohio 4255, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3737 (9th Dist. September 19, 2012).*

While the record is not clear that the defendant’s DL remained with the officer when consent was granted, it was seemingly spontaneous and that supported voluntariness. United States v. Cusick, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133687 (M.D. Fla. September 19, 2012).* Note: The court minimizes the factual issue of the DL being in the officer’s hand on the question of “free to leave.” With the PATRIOT Act and everybody seemingly requiring a driver’s license to conduct everyday business, one simply is not free to leave when his DL is in the officer’s hand. This is as much or more a seizure of the person as seizure of the suitcase of a traveler in Place interferes with travel. Indeed, if you asked officers what they would do if the motorist drove off without the license, it is a virtual certainty that they would stop the motorist for driving without a license or for just being suspicious. This is important. Watch for it.

“A novel [Fourth Amendment] issue alone cannot be the basis of finding complexity” for excess compensation for appointed counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. United States v. Brandwein, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133926 (W.D. Mo. September 19, 2012).*

Florida once required the LPN of vehicles paid with large denomination bills at toll booths, and the motorist wasn’t released until the number was recorded. This was not a Fourth Amendment seizure. That procedure has since been discontinued. Chandler v. Sec'y of the Fla. DOT, 695 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2012)*:

The Chandlers' assertions of delay in their release from the toll booth are insufficient to allege a Fourth Amendment seizure. There are no allegations in the complaint that allow us to conclude that the Chandlers were "forced" to submit to the allegedly unconstitutional delay. They do not allege that they were forced to drive on the turnpike. They chose to drive on the turnpike. They do not allege that they had no notice they would have to stop at toll booths and pay tolls. In choosing to drive on a toll road, they implicitly consented to stopping at toll booths (which stops they concede are not unconstitutional detentions) and paying tolls to enjoy the privilege of using the toll road.

The Chandlers have not alleged that they were forced to pay their tolls with large-denomination bills, thereby subjecting themselves to whatever delay was caused by completion of the Bill Detection Report. They chose to pay their toll with large-denomination bills. Nor have they alleged that they asked to withdraw the large report-triggering bill in favor of a smaller delay-free bill and were denied that opportunity.

Ultimately, the Chandlers merely allege that their choice to pay their toll with a large-denomination bill occasioned an unspecified delay in their ability to proceed through the toll booth. The delay was caused by the toll booth operator's completion of the Bill Detection Report. The claim that this delay is an unconstitutional detention is predicated upon the Chandlers' assumption that they have an absolute right to immediately proceed through the toll booth upon tendering the toll in any denomination. This assumption is unfounded.

Defendant’s arrest for disorderly conduct was valid. While she was at the police station, the police contended that her nervousness justified a strip search under state statute, but the court found that this was essentially retroactive reasonable suspicion, and refused to find that it justified the strip search. State v. Barron, __ Wash. App. __, 284 P.3d 231 (2012).*

Defendant’s allegedly giving a false identity when he was stopped was reasonable suspicion for a detention and then probable cause for arrest. State v. Matthews, 100 So. 3d 890 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012).*

Crossing the fog line twice justified a stop. State v. McGee, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 724 (September 13, 2012).*

The Moral Liberal: Statement on HR 5949, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act by Congressman Ron Paul

Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to the reauthorization of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, as it violates the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. Supporters of this reauthorization claim that the United States will be more vulnerable if the government is not allowed to monitor citizens without a warrant. I would argue that we are more vulnerable if we do allow the government to monitor Americans without a warrant. Nothing makes us more vulnerable than allowing the Constitution to be violated.