Daily Archives: November 27, 2020

E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t even attempt a Franks offer of proof and it fails

“Defendant fails to provide the requisite offer of proof to make a substantial preliminary showing that Agent Celeste intentionally or recklessly included false information in the Affidavit. Likewise, defendant fails to explain the absence of such an offer of proof, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t even attempt a Franks offer of proof and it fails

N.D.Cal.: “Least intrusive means” for a search isn’t the 4A question; reasonableness is.

“Least intrusive means” for a search isn’t the Fourth Amendment question—reasonableness is. Anyone can imagine a lesser intrusive measure and that would lead to choas. United States v. Crenshaw, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220617 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020):

Posted in Reasonableness | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: “Least intrusive means” for a search isn’t the 4A question; reasonableness is.

TX9: Mandamus doesn’t lie to avoid a search warrant before it’s executed

The target of a search warrant sought to avoid the search by a writ of mandamus, which is denied for lack of a right to a clear duty on the respondent’s part. In re Matula, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9239 … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Warrant execution | Comments Off on TX9: Mandamus doesn’t lie to avoid a search warrant before it’s executed

W.D.Ky.: How def answered other questions during his stop was pertinent to the voluntariness of his later consent

How defendant answered other questions about his paperwork and where he was going was important to show that he understood when asked for consent on the totality of circumstances. United States v. Reyes-Martinez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217510 (W.D. Ky. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Consent, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: How def answered other questions during his stop was pertinent to the voluntariness of his later consent

CA11: No REP in one’s email address held by IP company under third-party doctrine

“This appeal requires us to decide whether the government needed a warrant to obtain a criminal suspect’s email address and internet protocol addresses from a third party’s business records. It also requires us to decide whether probable cause supported a … Continue reading

Posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on CA11: No REP in one’s email address held by IP company under third-party doctrine