Cato: Clever Hans vs. the Fourth Amendment by Julian Sanchez:

=> Read more!

Washington State SB 5737 (posted here) sponsor claims assault weapon inspection a “mistake” that shouldn’t have been in there. See Dems Sponsor Bill To Violate Fourth Amendment Rights Of Gun Owners.

Mistake as in: Some scribe was supposed to have deleted that before it got submitted? Or, a slip of the keyboard that included it in the first place?

Bailey v. United States, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1075 (Feb. 19, 2013) decided by SCOTUS: Detention of a person during execution of a search warrant has to be in the immediate vicinity of the place to be searched, and Bailey wasn't in the vicinity. If the government can justify it under Terry, they get a shot on remand. Syllabus:

=> Read more!

Florida v. Harris, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1121 (Feb. 19, 2013), decided by SCOTUS. The state proved the drug dog reliable, so its alert is probable cause. Syllabus:

=> Read more!

There is no Fourth Amendment right to protection against searching information in NCIC. A warrant on defendant was basis for his stop. United States v. Cobb, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186155 (E.D. Tenn. December 27, 2012):

Without providing any legal support for this argument, Defendant Campbell insists that a law enforcement officer must have reasonable suspicion to search the NCIC database for a person's information. Many courts have held that computer database searches are not subject to Fourth Amendment analysis. In fact, "[t]he obvious purpose of maintaining law enforcement databases is to make information, such as the existence of outstanding warrant, readily available to officers carrying out legitimate law enforcement duties." United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding no expectation of privacy in an officer's search of the Law Enforcement Information Network, which revealed an outstanding warrant); see also Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620, 628 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding that a NCIC search did not violate the plaintiff's federal constitutional rights); Cincerella v. Egg Harbor Township Police Dept., No. 06-1183 (RBK), 2009 WL 792489, at *3 (D. N.J. Mar. 23, 2009) (stating that "[b]ecause a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information in the NCIC database, searching a person's record through the NCIC database does not violate the federal or state constitution"); United States v. Schmid, No. 3:06-CR-97, 2007 WL 540788, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 15, 2007) (finding probable cause after the officer entered the vehicle's license plate number and received a NCIC reporting indicating that the vehicle was associated with the defendants, who had outstanding federal warrants). Therefore, the Court finds that Officer Mattina did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he conducted the computer searches.

Following the analogous United States v. Hernandez, 647 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2011), defendant has standing to challenge GPS tracking of a vehicle he legitimately borrowed when he was in control, but not otherwise. United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2013):

Contrary to the assertion of the dissent, we do not hold that only the person with legal ownership has a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time a tracking device is installed on a vehicle. If we had so held, we could not have concluded, as we do, that James Gibson has standing to challenge the installation of the tracking device on the Avalanche when it was in his possession and control. Instead, we conclude that James Gibson has not established that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Avalanche only when it was searched on February 20, 2009, because he was not the legal owner of the Avalanche, he has not established that he had exclusive custody and control of the Avalanche, and he was neither a driver of, nor a passenger in, the Avalanche when it was searched.

FISA’s “significant purpose” requirement has been upheld by several circuits under the Fourth Amendment. The PATRIOT Act amendments have also been upheld. This court doesn’t disagree. United States v. Mohamud, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186093 (D. Ore. May 7, 2012).*

A commercial building that was the subject of an arson was reasonably searched under Tyler and Clifford. The owner’s interest is less in a commercial property than in a home. No effort had been made to secure the property after the fire. United States v. Cromer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186153 (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2012).*

2255 petitioner “supplies a laundry list of criticisms relating to his counsel's pretrial investigation and management of a motion to suppress” that was litigated and lost, and then petitioner pled guilty. That was a waiver. Petitioner claims defense counsel didn’t address the Fourth Amendment in the motion to suppress, but he clearly and effectively did. “Counsel was not ineffective merely because the Court ruled against him on the motion.” Leggette v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21569 (S.D. W.Va. January 7, 2013).*

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in zipped and closed duffle bags stored by permission at a friend’s house. This was reasonable under our societal understandings. See United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2005). The closed and locked nature of the containers showed his expectation of privacy, and that was enough for him to prove it, even without testifying. A search of the rifle case was valid without a warrant because it was a “single purpose container” that revealed its contents. United States v. Gardner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20527 (E.D. N.C. January 30, 2013):

"[A]lthough the plain view doctrine may support the warrantless seizure of a container believed to contain contraband, any subsequent search of its concealed contents must either be accompanied by a search warrant or justified by one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. United States v. Williams, 41 F.3d 192, 197 (4th Cir. 1994). One such exception is the so-called single-purpose container exception. This doctrine instructs that search of a container seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine is permissible when "the contents of the seized container are a foregone conclusion." Davis, 690 F.3d at 235. The Supreme Court has specifically held that a gun case is such a container. See Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 765 n.13 (1979) (specifically noting that the contents of a gun case "can be inferred from [it's] outward appearance" obviating the need for a warrant to search it), overruled on other grounds, California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).

In this case, the rifle case was found in plain view. As it was a gun case, it falls within the single-purpose container exception. Since the contents of the case were a foregone conclusion, no warrant was needed to search this case found in plain view. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to suppress as to the rifle case.