Daily Archives: April 23, 2022

W.D.Tex.: Def had REP in bag in car but no standing in rest of search of car

While defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the car he was in, he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his bag in the car. United States v. Grice, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72586 (W.D.Tex. Apr. 20, 2022). … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Nexus, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Def had REP in bag in car but no standing in rest of search of car

CA4: 4A governs search claims, not due process clause

The Fourth Amendment governs searches [after Rochin and its “shocking the conscience” standard] not the due process clause. Smith v. Travelpiece, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10743 n.6 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2022):

Posted in Due process | Comments Off on CA4: 4A governs search claims, not due process clause

D.N.J.: No standing in car GPS def sometimes rode in

Defendant failed to show standing to challenge seizure of the GPS in vehicles he sometimes was a passenger in. United States v. Mims, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72333 (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2022). There was reasonable suspicion to extend this stop … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on D.N.J.: No standing in car GPS def sometimes rode in

AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

The search authorization for this service member’s cell phone was overbroad and failed to include text messages which were at issue. This failed Leon’s good faith exception: “We disagree, and find the fourth Leon exception clearly applies in this case—that … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Good faith exception, Overseizure, Scope of search | Comments Off on AF: Despite search authorization not permitting this search and GFE not applying, exclusionary rule should not apply; no deterrence

CA2: Video surveillance in Thailand legal under Thai law admissible here

The DEA with Thai officers installed a camera and listening device in a dwelling in Phuket, Thailand. Defendant was a short-time guest there and he was recorded. Apparently the installation and monitoring was legal under Thai law. The capture of … Continue reading

Posted in Foreign searches, Independent source, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA2: Video surveillance in Thailand legal under Thai law admissible here