The state’s claim of a Heien-type mistake of law fails. The statute is not ambiguous, and the defendant didn’t violate it. State v. Trout, 2019 Ohio ___, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 124 (5th Dist. Jan. 15, 2019).
Defendant operated a medical marijuana grow in Michigan. He was subjected to a search, and he was indicted federally. He can’t meet his burden to enjoin the federal prosecution for violating the state MMJ statute under the federal appropriations act that limits use of federal funds from interfering with state MMJ activities. United States v. Trevino, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7917 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2019).*
Plaintiff adequately pled that defendant officers, members of CPD Team 6713, were engaged in a theft and robbery ring where they used bogus and apparently real search warrants to rob their victims. Motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim is denied. Robles v. City of Chicago, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9022 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2019):
A school security officer gets qualified immunity for a patdown search of 21 students in a class for allegedly stolen money because there was reasonable suspicion as to all 21. Woods v. Rio Rancho Pub. Schs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8236 (D. N.M. Jan. 17, 2019).*
Defendant claimed in his Rule 60(b) effort to supplement a 2255 petition, that there was fraud on the court in obtaining the search warrant in his case: “Additionally, Black cannot make the requisite showing as to his Rule 60(b) motion. In his motion, Black merely made a conclusory allegation of fraud committed by the government without providing any evidence, and he did not allege how the government’s alleged fraudulent conduct prevented him from fully presenting his case. Waddell v. Hendry Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of Black’s Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, Black’s motion for a COA is DENIED.” Black v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1502 (11th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019).*
Seizure of defendant’s clothing from a hospital room floor was justified by the plain view doctrine. United States v. Clancy, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8471 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2019).
City inspectors entering into public business areas did not violate the Fourth Amendment or invade any reasonable expectation of privacy. S. Allegheny Pittsburgh Rest. Enters. v. City of Pittsburgh, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8314 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2019).*
Slate: Biometrics vs. the Fifth Amendment by Josephine Wolff:
New Law Review Article: Fourth Amendment Textualism by Jeffrey Bellin, posted on SSRN. Abstract:
Because officers did not ask defendant for the combination to his safe to search it under a warrant, he was not required to have the Indiana Pirtle advisement before they searched it. Brown v. State, 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 14 (Jan. 15, 2019).*
On the totality of evidence, there was a substantial basis for concluding there was probable cause for issuance of the three search warrants in this case, and the motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Carpenter, 2019-Ohio-58, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 66 (3d Dist. Jan. 14, 2019).*
Plaintiff stated a Franks claim that his arrest warrant was based on false evidence and omitted exculpatory evidence. The officer is denied qualified immunity. Rainsberger v. Benner, 17 2521 (7th Cir. Jan. 15, 2019):
Volokh Conspiracy: Search Warrants and Compelled Biometric Access to Phones by Orin Kerr:
A new ruling, and some (mostly critical) thoughts.
Defendant’s clothing was properly seized under the plain view doctrine whether he was a suspect or a victim. Defendant also didn’t have standing in the car involved because it wasn’t his. United States v. Hood, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5357 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2019).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls. Here, the court goes one step further and finds implied consent from making the call when hearing notice that the calls are being recorded. United States v. Christensen, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6167 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2019).
Six month delay in getting a search warrant for a hard drive in a child pornography case was unreasonable. The government could give a good reason for the delays which might have justified it. Search recommended suppressed. United States v. Fife, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218951 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 26, 2019).*
Defendant was stopped for going 43 in a 40, and that was a justified stop. The stop was based on the information from another officer under collective knowledge, and there was reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. Pier v. State, 2019 WY 3, 2019 Wyo. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 11, 2019)