Category Archives: Privileges

D.D.C.: In motion to withdraw plea, waived motion to suppress was arguable and IAC

Here, failure to file a motion to suppress on the obtaining defendant’s passcode for his cell phone was ineffective assistance of counsel. At this point, it was debatable, and it should have been raised. The government had the phones, and … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Privileges | Comments Off on D.D.C.: In motion to withdraw plea, waived motion to suppress was arguable and IAC

Courthouse News Service: Right to livestream traffic stops debated at Fourth Circuit

Courthouse News Service: Right to livestream traffic stops debated at Fourth Circuit by Erika Williams (“A shouting match erupted between a judge and an attorney at a hearing over whether passengers in cars pulled over by police can broadcast their … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Privileges | Comments Off on Courthouse News Service: Right to livestream traffic stops debated at Fourth Circuit

CA9: AZ GOP head denied injunction for Jan.6 committee subpoena for call logs in 1A challenge

The head of the Arizona GOP sued the January 6th Committee to block a subpoena to T-Mobile for her call records, not content, on First Amendment Free Association grounds. On appeal, the injunction is denied. This is similar to Eastman’s … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on CA9: AZ GOP head denied injunction for Jan.6 committee subpoena for call logs in 1A challenge

D.Mass.: Lawyer target of SW for records has no right to participate in the initial taint team review

A lawyer is the target of a search warrant. The government was using a taint team (or “filter team”) to review the materials for privileged matters. The lawyer proposed a more restrictive approach, and the government agreed with part of … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Taint team | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Lawyer target of SW for records has no right to participate in the initial taint team review

E.D.Pa.: Work product privilege in product of a SW is burden of defense

A special master reviewed the product of the search warrant for work product materials. The defendants have the burden of proof on work product, and they didn’t meet it. United States v. Vepuri, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151833 (E.D. Pa. … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Cell site location information, Nexus, Privileges | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Work product privilege in product of a SW is burden of defense

OK: 5A’s foregone conclusion rule applies to passcodes

The foregone conclusion rule applies to defendant’s Fifth Amendment claim revealing the password to his electronics would incriminate him. Reynolds v. State, 2022 OK CR 14, 2022 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 14 (Aug. 4, 2022):

Posted in Cell phones, Privileges | Comments Off on OK: 5A’s foregone conclusion rule applies to passcodes

S.D.Miss.: Taint team after a SW isn’t a judicial function, rejecting Baltimore Law Firm

This district court rejects, as has S.D.N.Y., the Art. III function of filter teams reviewing searches of Baltimore Law Firm. (In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019 (“Baltimore Law Firm”), 942 F.3d 159, 170-71 (4th Cir. 2019)). Too much … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on S.D.Miss.: Taint team after a SW isn’t a judicial function, rejecting Baltimore Law Firm

NJ: Court order for cell phone passcodes is a 5A question; 4A inquiry erroneously included

“The State appeals the denial of its motion to compel a cell phone passcode from defendant, C.J.L. The State argues the motion court erred by overlooking critical ownership evidence and misapplying the foregone conclusion doctrine, effectively importing Fourth Amendment principles … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Privileges | Comments Off on NJ: Court order for cell phone passcodes is a 5A question; 4A inquiry erroneously included

D.S.D.: Ptf stated § 1983 claim that jail phone provider recorded attorney-client calls

Plaintiff stated a § 1983 claim that a jail phone provider recorded attorney calls. Kurtenbach v. Securus Techs., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54089 (D.S.D. Mar. 25, 2022). Colorado grants immunity from crimes found as a result of a call about … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Ptf stated § 1983 claim that jail phone provider recorded attorney-client calls

CA2: Swearing to arrest warrant at direction of a prosecutor does not confer prosecutorial immunity

“Long-standing precedent makes clear that swearing to an arrest warrant affidavit and executing an arrest are traditional police functions, and performing such functions at the direction of a prosecutor does not transform them into prosecutorial acts protected by absolute immunity.” … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Independent source, Ineffective assistance, Privileges | Comments Off on CA2: Swearing to arrest warrant at direction of a prosecutor does not confer prosecutorial immunity

FL4: Prosr’s argument def refused to give password to phone violated 4A

“The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion in limine and allowing the State to present evidence and argument referencing Appellant’s refusal to provide his cellphone PIN and his refusal to consent to a warrantless search of his entire cellphone. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Excessive force, Privileges, Staleness | Comments Off on FL4: Prosr’s argument def refused to give password to phone violated 4A

W.D.N.C.: No standing to challenge alleged interception of calls between another person and his lawyer

Plaintiff’s claim that government agents intercepted telephone calls between some other person and his lawyer in violation of the attorney-client privilege fails because he had no standing to complain. Labreche v. Chambers, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28163 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: No standing to challenge alleged interception of calls between another person and his lawyer

S.D.Tex.: No 5A protection on phone pass code, and inevitable discovery applies

The foregone conclusion rationale for access to passcodes for cell phones. There was no Fifth Amendment privilege to providing the passcodes. Inevitable discovery applies. United States v. Zhengdong Cheng, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6437 (S.D.Tex. Jan. 12, 2022):

Posted in Cell phones, Inevitable discovery, Privileges | Comments Off on S.D.Tex.: No 5A protection on phone pass code, and inevitable discovery applies

N.D.Ohio: Def’s psychotherapist reported he was viewing CP; 4A does not prohibit using it in SW application

The psychotherapist-patient privilege does not bar use of a report from defendant’s psychotherapist to law enforcement that defendant admitted viewing child pornography. The psychotherapist discussed with others and concluded that a report was necessary. Whatever the privilege for trial, it … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Privileges, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Def’s psychotherapist reported he was viewing CP; 4A does not prohibit using it in SW application

WI: Contempt for failing to provide passcode for search of phone is reversed because it is now moot by SW

The owner of a cell phone was held in contempt for not providing a passcode to his phone so police could search it. They did not yet have a warrant. After defendant was held in contempt, the police obtained a … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Privileges | Comments Off on WI: Contempt for failing to provide passcode for search of phone is reversed because it is now moot by SW

IL: The foregone conclusion doctrine applies to providing passcode to search a cell phone

The foregone conclusion doctrine applies to obtaining the passcode to a cell phone to search it. Thus, production of the passcode is non-testimonial for the Fifth Amendment. People v. Sneed, 2021 IL App (4th) 210180, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 637 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Privileges | Comments Off on IL: The foregone conclusion doctrine applies to providing passcode to search a cell phone

OH11: No standing in father’s cell phones even when communicating with defense experts

Defendant is charged with killing his wife. He didn’t have standing to challenge a search warrant for his father’s cell phones where attorney-client privilege in their contents was asserted because the father was communicating with expert witnesses in his case. … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Privileges, Standing, Stop and frisk, Voluntariness | Comments Off on OH11: No standing in father’s cell phones even when communicating with defense experts

Politico: FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom

Politico: FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom by Josh Gerstein (“The action against James O’Keefe has prompted concern about the Biden administration’s commitment to the First Amendment.”) Is O’Keefe a “journalist” or not? He … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on Politico: FBI raid on Project Veritas founder’s home sparks questions about press freedom

WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

The trial court’s order denying return of patient records taken by search warrant from the petitioner youth services provider failed to comply with HIPAA requirements should have been granted. While the records have been returned and the case is otherwise … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

CA9: Use of def’s suppression hearing testimony in penalty phase not unreasonable application of Simmons

The California Supreme Court’s holding that Simmons did not bar using defendant’s suppression hearing testimony in the death penalty phase of his criminal trial (People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal. 4th 353, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408, 966 P.2d 442, 464, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Privileges, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA9: Use of def’s suppression hearing testimony in penalty phase not unreasonable application of Simmons