The non-disclosure provision of National Security Letters violates the First Amendment as a prior restraint, and it is nonseverable from the rest of the statute. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional and NSL’s may not be issued. The order is stayed for 90 days to give the Court of Appeals the opportunity to address it. In re National Security Letter, No. C 11-02173 SI (N.D. Cal. March 15, 2013):

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the NSL nondisclosure and judicial review provisions suffer from significant constitutional infirmities. Further, these infirmities cannot be avoided by “conforming” the language of the statute to satisfy the Constitution’s demands, because the existing statutory language and the legislative history of the statutes block that result. As such, the Court finds section 2709(c) and 3511(b) unconstitutional, but stays the judgment in order for the Ninth Circuit to consider the weighty questions of national security and First Amendment rights presented in this case.

See eff.org: National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules; Wired.com.

Defendant’s garage was part of the home. She parked there and entered the house through its door. Therefore, the officer’s entry there violated the curtilage. Even if the officer had probable cause defendant had been driving recklessly, he lacked exigent circumstances to enter the apartment when the defendant answered the door. He stepped in only two feet, but that’s still an entry. Corey v. State, 2013 Ga. App. LEXIS 185 (March 13, 2013).

Defendant relied on United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2001), to have standing to challenge the search of the rental car he was driving; defendant had no standing here because he had no DL and his relation to the renter was tenuous and not a family relationship. United States v. Akinola, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35952 (D. N.J. March 15, 2013).

Defendant’s consent is voluntary. While he speaks Spanish, the recording of his interview shows he understands English. United States v. Monarrez-Mendoza, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35584 (N.D. Tex. March 6, 2013).*

Police received a call about a man walking pit bulls, so they went looking for him and found him. The officer rolled down his window, and defendant kept walking talking to him. The officer told him to stop and produce his ID, and defendant refused. Things escalated from there to defendant being arrested for disorderly and refusing to obey an order of the officer. The entire stop should have been suppressed because the stop was unreasonable. There was no legal basis for stopping defendant. He was in violation of no law. Harrell v. State, 109 So. 3d 604 (Miss. App. 2013).

The consenter ultimately had no actual authority to consent, but there was clear apparent authority: “The lack of ambiguity from Orphan's statements to Barahona, and from his conduct at the scene and during questioning, underscores the reasonableness of the officers' belief that Orphan lived in the home at 1301 Pear Grove Lane. Specifically, it shows that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe his statements that he lived in the back room with his girlfriend, and that he had been living there for three or four months, and it was objectively reasonable for the officers to thus believe that Orphan had mutual use of the property and control over it for most purposes.” United States v. Chavez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35628 (D. N.M. March 6, 2013).

Prosecutor’s repeated, yet unobjected to, references to defendant refusing consent to show consciousness of guilt was plain error. People v. Pollard, 2013 COA 31, 2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 349 (March 14, 2013):

=> Read more!

The stop continued for 10 minutes, but it was complicated by defendant’s paperwork, and it was only as long as required. After that, he was validly asked for consent. United States v. Aponte, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34017 (D. Neb. March 12, 2013).*

Defendant was driving a truck of a friend with a loud muffler, and the noise attracted the officers’ attention, and they saw him speeding. When pulled over, defendant had no paperwork for the truck, and his story was changing. Extending the stop was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Bernal, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34822 (D. Guam March 11, 2013).*

On the totality, with information from other officers, officers had probable cause that defendant was involved in a hit and run, and that justified his stop. United States v. Perkins, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34861 (D. Minn. January 11, 2013).*

A drug dog’s alert on defendant’s car justified a search of any containers in it, including her purse. United States v. Carter, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4908 (5th Cir. March 11, 2013).*

Officers’ entry into defendant’s curtilage was justified by seeing a gun in his waistband. United States v. Meidel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35227 (W.D. Mo. March 14, 2013).*

Police executed a search warrant at defendant’s house finding drugs. She was seen approaching in her car, and she was stopped. Because of the search, officers had probable cause to arrest her. When she was stopped, she admitted some drugs in her car. [Apparently she did not contest the lack of a Miranda warning.] State v. Dickey, 827 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 2013).*