Daily Archives: January 31, 2019

AR: Isolated comment at trial from police witness defendant wouldn’t give up cell phone password didn’t require reversal; jury admonished on right not to

An isolated trial comment from a witness that the officer couldn’t access a cell phone without the password wasn’t prejudicial. Also, the parties agreed that an admonition that defendant had a constitutional right to not give it was given. Lewis … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges | Comments Off on AR: Isolated comment at trial from police witness defendant wouldn’t give up cell phone password didn’t require reversal; jury admonished on right not to

CA5: 9 day delay in getting SW for cell phone wasn’t unreasonable

The search warrant reasonably authorized seizure of defendant’s cell phone but not its search. The nine day delay in getting the search warrant for the phone was not unreasonable. The court declines to adopt a bright line rule and goes … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on CA5: 9 day delay in getting SW for cell phone wasn’t unreasonable

CA6: No showing insurance company’s investigative report was cause of his arrest; also didn’t plead state action

Plaintiff sued his insurance company for participating in his false arrest because they submitted their own investigative file to law enforcement. There is no evidence that law enforcement didn’t conduct its own independent analysis of what they received. In addition, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA6: No showing insurance company’s investigative report was cause of his arrest; also didn’t plead state action

CA2: Def parole officer gets QI on whether 4A or NY case law applies to parole search

Plaintiff was subjected to a parole search, and he contended New York law applied rather than Samson et al. The officer gets qualified immunity on the question because it appears Samson should but we don’t even need to resolve it. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA2: Def parole officer gets QI on whether 4A or NY case law applies to parole search

N.D.Ala.: No Franks proffer so motion fails

“In this case, the defendant has not attempted to make any preliminary showing that the information contained in the application/affidavit was knowingly or recklessly false. The closest he comes to doing so is the assertion that the application/affidavit avers that … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: No Franks proffer so motion fails