VoteKansas.org

Defendant was found to have consented. Sure, there were a lot of police there, but he wasn’t yet arrested, and they talked casually for 20 minutes before consent was asked for. There was no evidence of overt coercion, and he was informed of his right to refuse the search in writing. United States v. Cochran, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40505 (S.D. Fla. February 8, 2012).*

A wire on a cooperating codefendant-to-be was sufficient to show nexus to defendant’s house because the house was connected to the alleged drug deal. The good faith exception would support the search anyway. United States v. Bell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40770 (D. Minn. February 6, 2012).*

Police had fairly specific information (which was couched in terms of what they knew and didn’t know) and overhead the CI on a wire talking with a man in a silver Jetta and a drug deal was arranged. When a silver Jetta showed up, the police identified themselves, and the defendant ran from the Jetta. They had probable cause, and flight alone wasn’t all they had. United States v. Bazzle, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40236 (E.D. Pa. March 23, 2012).*

Officers followed tracks in the snow from the scene of a burglary to defendant’s house, and defendant’s father consented to a search of computers in the house that were likely stolen. His father, a retired police officer, appreciated the significance of what was going on and wanted the computers gone. He had apparent authority to consent to a search of these computers. United States v. Clutter, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139 (8th Cir. March 26, 2012):

When determining whether a third party exercised actual or apparent common authority over the contents of a computer, courts typically examine several factors -- whether the consenting third party in fact used the computer, whether it was located in a common area accessible to other occupants of the premises, and -- often most importantly -- whether the defendant's files were password protected. See United States v. Stanley, 653 F.3d 946, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 232-33 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 399 (2011); Andrus, 483 F.3d at 719-20; United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 554-55 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 913 (2007); United States v. Morgan, 435 F.3d 660, 663-64 (6th Cir. 2006). Clutter argues it was error to deny his motion to suppress because the government presented no evidence "that Joel Clutter used or had electronic access to the computers."

The primary flaw in this argument is that the only Fourth Amendment issue with any factual support is whether the three computers were validly seized at the Clutter home on January 22. There is no evidence that the officers searched the computers before obtaining an unchallenged warrant authorizing the search. The distinction, though often overlooked, is important: ....

[Maybe intentionally] Overlooked is a more fundamental question: Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in stolen computers?

Business Week: Big Brother Wants Your Facebook Password by Claire Suddath:

If you want to become a state trooper in Virginia, you should probably delete any indelicate information you have on Facebook. During the job interview process, the Virginia State Police requires all applicants to sign into Facebook, Twitter, and any social-networking site to which they regularly post information in front of an administrator.

“You sign a waiver, then there’s a laptop and you go to these sites and your interviewer reviews your information,” says Corinne Geller, spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police. “It’s a virtual character check as much as the rest of the process is a physical background check.” Geller says the practice has been around for only three months and is just one of many ways the state makes sure its law enforcement officials are ethically sound. (Potential troopers also have to submit to a polygraph test).

Officers came to defendant’s house for a knock-and-talk about child pornography traced back to his IP address. He wasn’t home but his parents were. Because the computers were used by all, sitting in the dining room, and his parents paid the internet bill, his parents had apparent authority to consent to a search of the computers. The fact he had an individual profile was not enough to create a reasonable expectation of privacy because it was not password protected. United States v. Trejo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6113, 2012 FED App. 0315N (6th Cir. March 22, 2012) (unpublished).

Officers found a marijuana patch outside defendant’s curtilage and followed footprints in the mud to defendant’s house. Officers came close to the curtilage, in making their observations, and they actually entered an outbuilding within the curtilage arguing protective sweep because of fresh footprints. That incursion, however, never was revealed to the issuing magistrate, so it was valid under inevitable discovery. United States v. Witherspoon, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6115, 2012 FED App. 0321N (6th Cir. March 23, 2012) (unpublished).*

Compulsory HIV testing of accused sex offenders satisfies the special needs requirement because it is a public health issue, not a criminal law issue. Imposing a probable cause standard would be “entirely impracticable” [not impractical?] because of lack of immediate outward manifestations. State v. Handy, 2012 VT 21, 2012 Vt. LEXIS 22 (March 23, 2012).*

Fourth Amendment law is clear that mobility of a car makes for exigency for the automobile exception. Because the defendant did not argue that the state constitution should be separately considered as in other states where a warrant would be required if there was time, the court declines to do decide case on state constitution. State v. Sanchez-Loredo, 2012 Kan. LEXIS 210 (March 23, 2012).*

The officers observed defendant committing a crime, so there was probable cause for the stop and search of his car. Marked money was in plain view torn up on the floorboard. Therefore, defense counsel couldn’t be ineffective. Cooper v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39826 (C.D. Ill. March 23, 2012).*

SANFORD, Fla. — Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school for having marijuana when the unarmed teenager was fatally shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer, a family spokesman said Monday.

Trayvon, 17, was suspended by Miami-Dade County schools because traces of marijuana were found in a plastic baggie in his ...

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Organizers of an annual Easter egg hunt attended by hundreds of children have canceled this year's event, citing the behavior of aggressive parents who swarmed into the tiny park last year, determined that their children get an egg.

That hunt was over in seconds, to the ...

PENNSYLVANIA

HARRISBURG — An organization that includes atheists and agnostics is suing over a Pennsylvania House resolution that declares 2012 the "Year of the Bible," saying the measure violates the U.S. Constitution.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the measure's main sponsor, the House clerk and the House parliamentarian Monday ...

TIOGA, N.D. — Along the wide-open expanses and rolling prairie of western North Dakota surrounding the state's booming oil patch, all sorts of bizarre litter can be found clogging the once-picturesque roadside: derelict hard hats, single boots, buckets, pallets, pieces of machinery, shredded semi tires, oily clothing, cigarette butts.

The ...

Cert. granted today in Florida v. Harris, 11-817.

Issue: Whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle.

Opinion below: Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011) posted here.

Briefs: Cert petition; brief in opposition.

This case will be argued next Term. Read the Florida Supreme Court's decision, the petition, and the BIO before you pass judgment on the oversimplistic issue the state chose to present. The case isn't that easy, unless, of course, the conservative wing has no problem with just saying "this is Place and Caballes and we're done." If it really was, they should have GVR'd it and been done with it.

SAN FRANCISCO — A 35-year-old man was booked on five counts of murder after the bodies of three women and two men were found at a gruesome crime scene in a San Francisco home.

The aftermath of the killings was so tangled that police couldn't initially determine whether they were dealing with ...

A face-to-face meeting better the affiant for a search warrant and the issuing magistrate is not required. Here, they recognized each other’s voices, the affiant swore over the phone and faxed the affidavit to the magistrate who faxed back the signed search warrant. Clay v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2298 (Tex. App. – Waco March 21, 2012):

The second statement relied upon by Clay is a comment by the Court that, while recognizing innovations such as telephonic search warrants should not be foreclosed by the requirement of a signed affidavit, "[w]e leave those potential future changes to the Texas Legislature...." Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). This statement, Clay believes, is an acknowledgment that a procedure to obtain warrants by telephone and facsimile has not been authorized by statute, does not exist under Texas law, and therefore cannot be a valid practice in Texas at the present time. We believe it is not such an acknowledgement and certainly is not such a prohibition. As the Court stated, it is important for the law to retain some flexibility in the face of technological advances. Id. at 792. Had there been no flexibility in the statute, the Smith Court would have been compelled to hold that a signed affidavit was required. It did not. And thus, the statute is also flexible so as to allow for the taking of an oath over the telephone or by some other electronic means of communication under certain circumstances. That is the nature of the development of the common law. We must decide only the issue presented—in this case, is the affidavit invalid because it was not made on an oath administered face-to-face.

Spike Lee's history of racially incendiary remarks should instantaneously discredit him from feigning outrage over any type of racial bias.

Turning a private water system over to the government in a perverse reverse-privatization situation will only lead to more ways for cash-starved governments to impose dubious taxes, debts and fees.

George Zimmerman has much in common with his detractors.

Update 3/30/12: Paul Ryan Endorses Romney: "I think it's important we coalesce as conservatives and focus on the big task at hand which is defeating Barack Obama in the fall."

Update 3/29/12: Marco Rubio endorses Romney. "I have no doubt Romney will govern as a conservative" - Marco Rubio.

He states Romney offers "stark contrast" to Obama and notes that he has been a governor of an important state and a successful businessman. Rubio also denounced the contested convention strategy of Romney's opponents.

While conservative hero Jim DeMint did not officially endorse Romney, he signaled that Romney was probably going to be the nominee and that he was okay with that.

"[What] I can tell conservatives from my perspective is that, I'm not only comfortable with Romney, I'm excited about the possibility of him possibly being our nominee. Again, this is not a formal endorsement and I do not intend to do that right now, but I just think we just need to look at where we are."

Al Cardenas, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, also wrote an op-ed calling for conservatives to avoid a prolonged primary and fight at the convention floor, as all scenarios point to the same outcome:

"With all due respect to my fellow conservative leaders determined to oppose Governor Romney, that is not a worthy endeavor. For the sake of our Republic, I'm not willing to wait until the Republican National Convention to sort this out. It's time to unite behind a worthy presidential candidate, build our organization and raise the resources necessary to defeat the liberal electoral machine."

"Governor Romney is an honorable, worthy, competent, conservative candidate for our next commander-in-chief. I'm proud to support his campaign for president. His opponents ran great races and all four men became better candidates because of the effort. I thank and congratulate them all on their contributions to the race, but their time is over."

Senator Mike Lee of Utah also announced his support for Romney this week. Lee was one of the top 2010 tea party stars and he ousted long-time incumbent Bob Bennett in the Republican primary.

Meanwhile, Freedomworks, longtime Romney antagonists, have dropped their opposition to the Romney campaign and are shifting their efforts into helping Romney defeat Obama. While not necessarily a ringing endorsement, the tea party organization has entered the "acceptance stage" of a Romney nomination. FreedomWorks Vice President Russ Walker chimed in:

"It is a statistical fact that the numbers favor Mitt Romney. We are dedicated to defeating Obama and electing a conservative Senate that will help Romney repeal Obamacare and address the nation's economic and spending challenges."

Other key conservative and tea party endorsements include:

Jan Brewer - Arizona Governor: "Mitt is by far the man who can go in and win"

Nikki Haley - South Carolina Governor: "Today is the day that I'm throwing all of my support behind Mitt Romney for president. What I wanted was someone who knew what it was like to turn broken companies around."

John Bolton - Former UN Ambassador: "Mitt Romney possesses the strongest vision for America's leadership role in the world. Mitt Romney will restore our military, repair relations with our closest allies, and ensure that no adversary -- including Iran -- ever questions American resolve."

Photo: US Senator Jim Demint - Win Mcnamee, Getty Images

Tea Party Starts Lining Up Behind Romney originally appeared on About.com Conservative Politics: U.S. on Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 07:31:29.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The power to regulate indirect effects is not a slippery slope. It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.

Officers somehow ended up at defendant's house based on an investigation that his IP address had been used for credit card fraud. They came to do a knock-and-talk for his computers and he refused to consent to a search. They came back with a search warrant, and he requested to delete files from one of the computers when one made an off-hand remark about child pornography, which they denied. Then they sought a second search warrant for child pornography based on the request to delete files. That was not an additional factor in probable cause, and the trial court was correct in suppressing the search and in finding no good faith exception. State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531, 2012 Neb. LEXIS 40 (March 23, 2012):

The Fourth Amendment contains a particularity requirement, stating that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Founding Fathers’ abhorrence of the English King’s use of general warrants—which allowed royal officials to engage in general exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings —was the impetus for the adoption of the Fourth Amendment.10 Simply put, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “fishing expeditions.”

...

[12] To allow a search based only on the fact that Sprunger wanted to hide something would sanction the type of general exploratory rummaging the Founders wished to prohibit. As we have stated before, “‘[a] general search for evidence of any crime,’” such as the one that would be issued based solely on this fact, is unconstitutional.

It is true that the fact Sprunger asked to delete some files might have raised a suspicion. But this suspicion did not amount to a fair probability that child pornography would be found on his computers. Based solely on this fact, the deputies would have no idea what would be found. Their search would have amounted to a rummaging through a treasure trove of information. “‘[T]he modern development of the personal computer and its ability to store and intermingle a huge array of one’s personal papers in a single place increases law enforcement’s ability to conduct a wide-ranging search into a person’s private affairs.’” It thus makes the particularity and probable cause requirements all the more important. To sanction a search based solely on Sprunger’s request to delete some unknown files would trivialize the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

. . .

Moreover, not only would a reasonable officer know that a general search warrant was illegal, a reasonable officer would also know that telling a person that he had “nothing to worry about” if he had no child pornography on his computer would lead that person to believe he was being investigated for child pornography. T The deputy had effectively planted the idea in Sprunger’s head. Given this, we do not see how the deputies could have objectively relied on the warrant. The deputies knew—or certainly should have known—that the only fact showing any connection to child pornography was of their own making.

While the application for the search warrant failed to show nexus to defendant’s car, the arrest warrant application presented to the magistrate just five minutes earlier did. Therefore, it was apparent the search warrant application omission was a mere oversight, and the magistrate apparently considered both in issuing the warrant, and this was not improper. The good faith exception would apply in any event. State v. Cunningham, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 370 (La. App. 4th Cir. March 21, 2012):

In sum, we find that Detective Matthews' failure to include information in the affidavit for the search warrant linking the residence to the Mustang used in the shooting was an apparent oversight. Nonetheless, the magistrate was aware of this link because it was contained in the affidavit for Williams' arrest warrant, which the magistrate read and signed mere minutes before reading the affidavit for the search warrant for the residence. Detective Matthews and the other officers were not unreasonable in relying on the validity of the search warrant for the residence. Nor is there evidence of any police misconduct on Detective Matthews' part. Given these circumstances coupled with the fact that the magistrate was in possession of the information linking the residence to the Mustang before he signed the search warrant for the residence, none of the exceptions to the good faith doctrine applies to this case. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the residence. Accordingly, the Relator's writ application is denied.

One defendant’s cell phone was could be seized and searched under his parole search condition, and the other defendants had no standing in his cell phone. United States v. Delvalle, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38547 (C.D. Cal. March 20, 2012).*

There was no reasonable suspicion to extend the stop in this case, and that unlawful detention led to an invalid consent. State v. Wendler, 2012 Kan. App. LEXIS 24 (March 23, 2012)*:

We conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, the duration of the traffic stop was measurably extended after the purpose of the traffic stop—to investigate Wendler's commission of a traffic violation—was concluded. Moreover, during the investigation into the traffic violation, the officer did not gain reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity necessary to lawfully extend the scope and duration of the detention. Finally, we conclude the unlawful detention of Wendler infected or tainted his consent to answer questions and to search the RV. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the district court suppressing the marijuana seized from the RV and the dismissal of charges against Wendler.