Sen. Rand Paul's bill to ensure adequate protection of the rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is not available on the Library of Congress website, perhaps until Tuesday.
A lot of hype in the news and press releases. Too bad they're keeping it from us until they want us to see it.
UPDATE: eff.org has it here.
“The Court finds that Defendant has not met his burden and is not entitled to a Franks hearing. As an initial matter, Defendant does not point to specific portions of the affidavit that he claims to be false. However, Defendant does take issue with certain statements in the affidavit, which the Court will discuss.” United States v. Pentz, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72640 (D. Utah May 21, 2013).*
The officer here had plenty of reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in drug dealing based on experience and a four-year snitch. He saw a hand labeled package at FedEx that strongly suggested to him based on experience that it contained drugs. United States v. Beverly, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72634 (W.D. Ky. April 15, 2013).*
Defendant was taken down in an illegal arrest, and then the gun on him was found. This is not a situation where there is a new crime before the arrest. There was no reasonable suspicion for the initial patdown. United States v. Evans, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72580 (E.D. Tenn. May 22, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73293 (E.D. Tenn. April 8, 2013).*
The court finds credible the testimony of the officers that defendant consented to an entry and search of his apartment. United States v. Paulino, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71978 (S.D. N.Y. May 21, 2013).*
The body armor and gun in defendant’s car was lawfully seized because the stop was with probable cause defendant was speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, running a red light, and evading an officer trying to stop him. United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2013).*
Politico.com: Report: Obama admin. fought to keep Rosen warrant secret by Dylan Byers:
Yet another development today in the case of James Rosen, the Fox News reporter who was monitored by the Justice Dept. after receiving classified information from a State Department security adviser.
According to The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza, the Obama administration fought to keep the search warrant for Rosen’s private e-mail account secret on the grounds that they might need to monitor the account for a long period of time.
A child pornography investigation led officers to a house with the IP address, but the search came up empty. There was a wireless router there, so the police went to neighbor’s houses to do a knock-and-talk for child porn. One of the neighbors admitted that she and her husband used the wireless. They saw him driving nearby and stopped him, knowing there was a warrant for his arrest for something else. He consented to a search of the computer which was in his truck. United States v. Harper, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71729 (W.D. Ark. April 4, 2013).*
Defendant was not entitled to withdraw her plea for ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel not filing a motion to suppress. First, it was in her interest for a better plea deal to not pursue a motion to suppress and she agreed to it. Second, the motion would fail on the merits. State v. Dorado, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 419 (May 17, 2013).*
Defendant’s stop was lawful and not unreasonably extended. He had no DL on him, and the fact the officer was really investigating drugs was not material because it was otherwise reasonable. State v. Hughes-Mabry, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 420 (May 16, 2013).*
WPIX: Cops claim cell phones recording them are deadly weapons to seize them (video) (this video is from NJ, but it claims similar occurrences in FL, CA, and AR)
PHOENIX, May 24 (Reuters) - Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of Latino drivers in his crackdown on illegal immigration, a federal judge found on Friday, and ordered him to stop using race as a factor in law enforcement decisions.
The ruling against the Maricopa County sheriff came in response to a class-action lawsuit brought by Hispanic drivers that tested whether police can target illegal immigrants without racially profiling U.S. citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.
U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that the sheriff's policies violated the drivers' constitutional rights and ordered Arpaio's office to cease using race or ancestry as a grounds to stop, detain or hold occupants of vehicles - some of them in crime sweeps dubbed "saturation patrols."
A two-year-old order just released, the District of Maryland holds that the government’s generalized assertions of needs for secrecy of search warrant materials were insufficient. The investigation seemed over, and the target has a right to know why the government seized his stuff. The government has to provide a redacted affidavit now. In re 14416 Coral Gables Way, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157361 (D.Md. April 5, 2011):
A padded case was immediately apparent to be a carrier for drug paraphernalia when it fell out of defendant’s glove compartment when he was retrieving his registration. State v. Furniss, 2013 Ohio 2064, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 1961 (5th Dist. May 13, 2013).
While the officer had information about defendant’s vehicle from earlier in the day, the apparently impaired driving was the basis for the stop. Hymes v. State, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 272 (May 21, 2013).*
Defendant passenger in a vehicle was not improperly seized by the officer’s asking the driver for consent, thereby allegedly extending the stop. State v. Ross, 256 Ore. App. 746, 304 P.3d 759 (2013).*
The police were in defendant’s apartment by consent to talk to him and get “his side of the story” about a domestic abuse involving assaulting and handcuffing his girlfriend when he admitted to having handcuffs. This admission was not during an illegal entry. State v. Harrison, 66 A.3d 432 (R.I. 2013).*
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
FDsys: Many district courts
FDsys: Many federal courts
Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
Most recent SCOTUS cases:
Plumhoff v. Rickard, granted Nov. 15, argued Mar. 4 (ScotusBlog)
Stanton v. Sims, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 7773 (Nov. 4, 2013) (per curiam)
Navarette v. California, granted Oct.1, argued Jan. 21 (ScotusBlog)
Fernandez v. California, granted May 20, argued Nov. 13 (ScotusBlog)
Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013)ScotusBlog)
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other blog)
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Camreta v. Greene, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog)
City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
S. Ct. Docket
Solicitor General's site
Briefs online (but no amicus briefs)
Curiae (Yale Law)
Oyez Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com
General (many free):
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne Legal Website Directory
Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Congressional Research Service:
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays
down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its
application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect
results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at
bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping
government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having
and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that
the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and
safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing
can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
—Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment.
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
—Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
—United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
—Pepé Le Pew
"There is never enough time, unless you are serving it."
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
—Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)