State’s failure to prove that the drug dog was certified was error. State v. Dixon, 2012 Ohio 4428, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3893 (9th Dist. September 28, 2012).*

Defendant’s admission he had a roach in the ashtray was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. State v. Ruffer, 2012 Ohio 4491, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3927 (6th Dist. September 28, 2012).*

A doctor ordered by the State Medical Board for a mental examination is not a Fourth Amendment claim. Smith v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 2012 Ohio 4423, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3874 (10th Dist. September 27, 2012).*

The evidence does not support the state’s contention that a warrantless search of the defendant’s house was required because of exigent circumstances. The timeline shows no exigency because the officers had reports of marijuana plants in the house for days and confirmed the day of the search. State v. Gagnon, 2012 ND 198, 821 N.W.2d 373 (September 25, 2012):

[*P14] The timeline of events in this case does not support the conclusion a warrantless search was necessary to avoid imminent destruction of evidence. Nason observed marijuana in Gagnon's window on May 28 and reported his observation to the BCI on May 29. When Niebuhr traveled to Douglas on June 3, marijuana plants were still in Gagnon's window. Following Niebuhr's initial observation, the plants remained in the window for approximately forty minutes while Niebuhr waited for additional officers. Nothing in the record indicates destruction of the plants became imminent when the additional officers arrived. To the contrary, Gagnon's failure to remove the marijuana from the window and Yellowbird's invitation that the officers "come in," indicate Gagnon and Yellowbird were unaware their residence was being observed by law enforcement until Niebuhr and Huber walked in their door. Finding a warrantless search was justified under these circumstances would permit law enforcement to create an exigency by deciding to approach the residence without a warrant despite ample opportunity to obtain one. In addition, nothing in the record indicates the safety of the officers or any other person was threatened before the officers approached Gagnon's residence. The State argues that after Niebuhr and Huber entered the residence, their safety was a concern because an unidentified person could have been inside. The presence of unidentified persons inside a residence always will be a possibility and that possibility, without more, does not create an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search. See United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding a protective sweep of an office violated the Fourth Amendment when "there [was] no evidence that the officers had any articulable facts that an unknown individual might be in the office, or anywhere else in the house, ready to launch an attack"). This is especially true when any limitations on law enforcement entry would have and could have been eliminated during the ample time--here days--available to secure a warrant. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that neither the possibility of the destruction of evidence nor the need to protect officer safety were exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search.

The fact Georgia law requires traffic stops be made by marked vehicles is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Defendant consented to a search of his person, so the plain feel doctrine does not apply. United States v. Foskey, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139541 (S.D. Ga. August 30, 2012).*

Plaintiff contended that AT&T Mobility accidentally released cell phone records to her city employer, and the employer publicized them. The subpoena sought records on a number, and the time predated plaintiff’s possession of the number. She lacks standing as to the time before she had the number, but the case proceeds as to the latter. The city remains as a defendant, but an individual gets qualified immunity in the § 1983 claim. As to AT&T, the arbitration clause in the phone contract is binding. McGreal v. At&T Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140686 (N.D. Ill. September 24, 2012).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion for a patdown. Questions unrelated to the stop did not measurably increase the length of the stop. United States v. Brome, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139495 (W.D. N.Y. September 5, 2012).*

Ohio probation decided that defendant’s release from probation was legally erroneous, so it continued to attempt to supervise him. State officers never legally sought to keep control over him–they just ignored the court order. Defendant’s probations search was thus illegal. United States v. Starnes, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20374, 2012 FED App. 01029N (6th Cir. September 26, 2012):

Contrary to the government's suggestion, the APA had no authority to disregard a binding court order simply because it disagreed with the sentencing judge's legal analysis. A law enforcement agency has no power to deliberately ignore a court order. United States v. Grooms, 6 F. App'x 377, 381 (7th Cir. 2001). The APA may not grant unto itself the "unique privilege to pick over court orders and [to] choose to enforce only those it deems worthy of enforcement." Id. When a law enforcement agency acts as the APA did here, it not only "erodes public confidence in law enforcement," it also "undermines the rule of law itself." Id.

The district court erred in finding that the APA took sufficient action to invalidate Judge Rothgery's order when it "timely expressed to Judge Rothgery its disagreement and so advised the defendant." Only formal legal action by the sentencing judge, or by an appellate court with appropriate jurisdiction, had the power to rescind the legally binding order and to reinstate Defendant's parole. An ex parte, private email was not sufficient. Not only does such a private communication fail to provide the defendant with adequate notice, it also has no legal force or effect. We would not indulge a defendant who pursued such a tactic, and we see no reason to extend such special consideration to the APA. A court speaks only through its orders, and only a court order could have rectified the sentencing judge's error, if indeed there ever was one.

Accordingly, the APA did not have the authority to issue a warrantless search and arrest of Defendant, because a binding court order declared Defendant—as a matter of law—released from supervision.

Defendant was stopped for three minutes after an officer passed by and smelled marijuana, and stopped to talk to him and others. After a search of the trunk revealed nothing, defendant fled and dropped a gun in flight. The reasonable suspicion for the stop didn’t completely dissipate by the time flight occurred just because the search came up empty. United States v. Lima, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137001 (D. V.I. September 25, 2012)*:

For the Court to enforce such an arbitrary and artificial end to a brief investigatory encounter that had just begun, as urged by Defendant Lima, and which suffered from no Fourth Amendment infirmity at its inception, would prevent the officers from doing their job—to assess the circumstances in light of their knowledge and experience and determine whether and how they should continue their investigation. The brevity of the Terry stop and the minimally intrusive nature of the investigation confirms that the officers "diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly ...." Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686. The approximately three minute interaction between the police officers and the three men fits entirely within Terry's admonition that an investigatory stop be brief. Cf. United States v. Frost, 999 F.2d 737, 740-42 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that a seizure lasting eighty minutes was acceptable under the circumstances, where the police had acted diligently). Defendant's attempt to parse an already brief and entirely legitimate investigatory stop into even smaller segments defies rationality.

WSJ: New Tracking Frontier: Your License Plates by Julia Angwin and Jennifer Valentino-Devries:

Until recently it was far too expensive for police to track the locations of innocent people such as Mr. Katz-Lacabe. But as surveillance technologies decline in cost and grow in sophistication, police are rapidly adopting them. Private companies are joining, too. At least two start-up companies, both founded by 'repo men'—specialists in repossessing cars or property from deadbeats—are currently deploying camera-equipped cars nationwide to photograph people's license plates, hoping to profit from the data they collect.

Lance Polivy, Property Expanding Fourth Amendment Protections: How the Common Law Doctrines of Ad Coelum and Abandonment Will Impact Fourth Amendment Searches after Jones, posted on SSRN, September 29, 2012:

Abstract:

This note explores the majority opinion in United States v. Jones, which found that warrantless GPS tracking of a car for 28 days was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The holding of Jones says that a physical trespass to a constitutionally enumerated area, with the intent to obtain information, which would have been considered a search at the time of the Founding, is a Fourth Amendment search. This note faithfully applies that holding to fly-over cases (in the context of domestic drones) and trash searches to determine if the majority in Jones implicitly overruled certain areas of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and expanded Fourth Amendment protections. The note concludes that while Justice Alito’s concurrence feared that the majority opinion would constrict privacy rights, when the Jones holding is applied to certain categories of Fourth Amendment searches — ancient property doctrine will actually increase individual privacy protection from modern law enforcement surveillance techniques.

Eugene R. Milhizer, Debunking Five Great Myths About the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, 211 Military Law Review 211-262 (2012):

Abstract:

In this article, I undertake to debunk five great myths about the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule. First, I debunk the myth that the contemporary exclusionary rule is constitutionally required in order to achieve several objectives, which include but are not limited to deterring future police misconduct. Second, I discredit the assertion that even if the rule is intended only to deter future police misconduct, it is justified because it efficiently accomplishes this objective. Third, I disagree with the contention that even if the present rule is too inefficient in deterring future police to justify its continuation, it can be sufficiently improved by a modification that accounts for the seriousness of the crime or the dangerousness of the criminal. Fourth, I oppose the argument that even if deterrence is insufficient to justify the rule, the rule’s objectives can be expanded to encompass and promote noble aspirations beyond police deterrence, which thereby justify the rule. Fifth and finally, I dispute the moral claim that even if none of the utilitarian justifications for the rule are sufficient, the rule is needed to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. Based on all the foregoing, I conclude that the exclusionary rule should be rescinded and replaced with an approach that punishes those who violate the Fourth Amendment while avoiding actions, such as suppression, which can frustrate justice by undermining the efficacy and legitimacy and the criminal trials.