Daily Archives: May 31, 2019

C.D.Ill.: Providing the inventory of the SW execution wasn’t designed to elicit an incriminating response

Providing defendant with the inventory of what was taken in the search, a normal practice usually required by law, was not designed to elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, the statement was voluntary and not subject to Miranda. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on C.D.Ill.: Providing the inventory of the SW execution wasn’t designed to elicit an incriminating response

W.D.N.Y.: PC was shown in the affidavit; the possibility of another innocent explanation doesn’t undermine PC

There was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant for defendant’s house. The possibility of another explanation doesn’t mean there isn’t probable cause. “The defendant argues that the facts are equally consistent with the possibility that the narcotics were … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Staleness | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: PC was shown in the affidavit; the possibility of another innocent explanation doesn’t undermine PC

OH3: Def’s failure to show actual innocence defeats his claim he never saw SW to challenge it

Defendant claimed he never knew about any search warrants in his case, but he was served with one when he was arrested and his place searched. Even so, there is no indication that he would have prevailed on any search … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on OH3: Def’s failure to show actual innocence defeats his claim he never saw SW to challenge it

The New American: New York Public School District First to Use Facial-recognition System

The New American: New York Public School District First to Use Facial-recognition System by Joe Wolverton, II:

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off on The New American: New York Public School District First to Use Facial-recognition System

D.Colo.: To just say a SW is “stale” in a motion to suppress says nothing; def has to show how or why it is stale

Defendant “cannot simply state general legal principles and expect the Court or the Government to figure out what he means to argue. Burciaga bears the burden here, and this ‘argument’ does not satisfy it. Accordingly, the Court will not inquire … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Emergency / exigency | Comments Off on D.Colo.: To just say a SW is “stale” in a motion to suppress says nothing; def has to show how or why it is stale

DC: To get the benefit of Heien mistake of law, there has to be something that shows the law mistakenly applied actually applied, and here it didn’t

A D.C. police car stopped, backed up, and four officers got out of the car, walked over to defendant, and told him to “get up.” A reasonable person would not have believed he was free to leave, and this stop … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness | Comments Off on DC: To get the benefit of Heien mistake of law, there has to be something that shows the law mistakenly applied actually applied, and here it didn’t