Defendant was on parole, and parole officers saw him involved in an apparent hand-to-hand drug transaction. A warrant was issued for his arrest. By the time they got to serve it, they discovered he was living at an unapproved address. That was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. The court declines to engage in determining whether they were “cajoled” into the search by the police since there was a basis. United States v. Marcano, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 77 (3d Cir. January 3, 2013).*

Defendant did not object to the GPS at his December 2009 suppression hearing, so it is reviewed for plain error, which it is not under Davis. United States v. Andres, 703 F.3d 828 (5th Cir. 2013).*

Defendant’s 2255 argument that the operator of a rental car had the authority of the actual renter, although not on the rental agreement, was the better way to argue the standing issue was a loser. Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. United States v. Hunter, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 519 (D. Kan. January 3, 2013).*

SCOTUSBlog: Ask the author: Tracey Maclin on the Court and the Fourth Amendment:

The following is a series of questions posed by Orin Kerr to Tracey Maclin on the occasion of the publication of The Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Welcome, Tracey. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this Question and Answer exchange for our readers. And congratulations on the publication of your book.

Question:

What inspired you to write a book on the exclusionary rule?

Answer:

Often lawyers and law students ask me to explain what the Justices were thinking when they decided a particular Fourth Amendment case. Before I started the book, I would provide an answer based on the Court’s opinion. After having taught constitutional law and criminal procedure for over twenty-five years, I have learned, however, that although a Court opinion might provide the justification for a particular result, that opinion may not reveal the motivations for the decision. I decided it was time to read the Justices’ private papers to determine the motivations behind their exclusionary rule decisions.

. . .

An anonymous CI provided information that the defendant was coming from New York to North Carolina to get away from the police, and he was bring drugs. He was going to a specific house. While an anonymous CI doesn’t have a track record, this one’s information all panned out and proved to be accurate. A search warrant is for the place where things may be found, not necessarily for persons, and probable cause and nexus was shown to defendant’s house. State v. Oates, __ N.C. App. __, 736 S.E.2d 228 (2012).*

POs did a home compliance check of various probationers, and this one was because two probationers came up in the system with the same address, and they both were to have no contact with other probationers. When they knocked at the door and announced “probation and parole,” the woman answering the door opened it all the way, implying they could enter. They did a quick walk through and found cocaine on a table. The probation entry was justified under Knights. Wallace v. State, 62 A.3d 1192 (Del. 2012).*

The owner of the house consented to a protective sweep of the premises, then a search of the premises. There are booking and public safety exceptions to Miranda. Asking about aliases and a gun here were not within the exceptions. United States v. Chavez-Maciel, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183038 (N.D. Ga. December 7, 2012).*

“Giving the finger” to a police officer is not disorderly conduct as a matter of law, and it violated the Fourth Amendment to arrest the plaintiff for it. There was no reasonable suspicion for plaintiff's arrest. Swart v. Insogna, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 186 (2d Cir. January 3, 2013):

An irate automobile passenger’s act of “giving the finger,” a gesture of insult known for centuries,¹ to a policeman has led to a seizure of two persons ordered to return to an automobile, an arrest for disorderly conduct, a civil rights suit, and now this appeal.

1 See Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 134 F.3d 87, 91 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (reporting the use of the gesture by Diogenes to insult Demosthenes). Even earlier, Strepsiades was portrayed by Aristophanes as extending the middle finger to insult Aristotle. See Aristophanes, The Clouds (W. Arrowsmith, trans., Running Press (1962)). Possibly the first recorded use of the gesture in the United States occurred in 1886 when a joint baseball team photograph of the Boston Beaneaters and the New York Giants showed a Boston pitcher giving the finger to the Giants. See Ira P. Robbins, Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1403, 1415 (2008).

. . .

Even with the wide range of conduct subsumed under New York’s expansive definition of disorderly conduct, John’s conduct, on the Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, could not create a reasonable suspicion that a disorderly conduct violation had been or was being committed. Neither Collins, whom John says arrested him, nor Insogna, whose report says he made the arrest, had observed any disruptive conduct, any threatening conduct, any shouting, or anything that risked a public disturbance. Whether or not giving the finger is properly considered an obscene gesture, neither Collins, who had not observed the gesture, nor Insogna, who had observed it and was likely piqued by having seen it, makes any claim on appeal that the gesture was disorderly conduct. Indeed, such a gesture alone cannot establish probable cause to believe a disorderly conduct violation has occurred. “The disorderly conduct statute at issue here does not circumscribe pure speech directed at an individual. Rather, it is directed at words and utterances coupled with an intent to create a risk of public disorder ....” People v. Tichenor, 89 N.Y.2d 769, 775 (1997) (citations omitted). On the Plaintiffs’ version, probable cause did not exist for an arrest for disorderly conduct. And because an objectively reasonable police officer would not have believed that probable cause existed, neither Defendant was entitled to the defense of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment. Of course, the defense of qualified immunity and the lawfulness of the arrest itself will appropriately be in issue at trial, where both versions of the episode will be presented.

Note: Read the opinion for the officer's rationalization for the arrest to the District Court, which the court found utterly fantastic and incredible: “giving the finger” was a distress call for a stop. Just admit it: you stopped him for contempt of cop.

The three hour detention of defendant in a building while waiting for a search warrant to arrive where there was no probable cause to believe that the defendant committed any crime or was going to destroy any evidence was unreasonable. His statement during the detention is suppressed. United States v. Watson, 703 F.3d 684 (4th Cir. 2013):

=> Read more!