{"id":1307,"date":"2007-11-16T06:37:34","date_gmt":"2007-09-01T11:43:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-01T11:43:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1307","title":{"rendered":"6th Cir.: Probation search can include use of program to scan computer"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tennessee probation search of defendant’s computer was based on reasonable suspicion, and it was not unreasonable on the totality to use a program designed to scan the private spaces of the computer for illicit images. United States v. Herndon<\/a>, 501 F.3d 683, 2007 FED App. 0353P (6th Cir. 2007):<\/p>\n

The requisite weighing of Herndon’s diminished privacy interest in his computer activities and the government’s comparatively substantial interest in monitoring probationers’ activities leads us to the conclusion that Harrien required no more than reasonable suspicion to conduct a check of Herndon’s computer. Knights<\/em><\/a>, 543 U.S. at 119-21. On this issue, Herndon contends that the information possessed by Harrien did not provide him with the necessary reasonable suspicion to conduct a check under Directive 5. The Supreme Court has directed reviewing courts making reasonable suspicion determinations to consider “the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu<\/em><\/a>, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Payne<\/em>, 181 F.3d at 788. “[T]he likelihood of [wrongdoing] need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” Arvizu<\/em>, 534 U.S. at 274.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A federal inmate was entitled to a hearing on whether the government still possessed evidence that he was allegedly entitled to recover, even though he is doing life plus 327 months. United States v. Stevens<\/a>, 500 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2007).*<\/p>\n

Inquiry about drugs in defendant’s house when police were in it caused defendant to reach for his pocket, and that led the officer to grab defendant’s arm as he attempted to pass by, resulting in their both falling on the couch. The attempt to patdown for officer safety was justified. The granting of defendant’s motion to suppress was reversed. United States v. Ellis<\/a>, 501 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}