VoteKansas.org

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — The overstuffed bags filling Fernando Mello's luggage cart wobbled precariously as the gym owner made his way home one morning through Rio's international airport. Navigating the terminal, Mr. Mello was part of a horde of other Brazilian travelers returning with loot found in the strip ...

Grabbing defendant’s arm to remove him from a store during an investigative detention was not unreasonable. Some force or threat of force is implicit in a Terry stop and frisk. State v. Dewitt, 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 23 (March 9, 2012):

At the outset, we reject the adoption of a per se rule prohibiting police from grabbing the arm of a suspect to stop and briefly detain the person to obtain an explanation for suspicious circumstances surrounding the stop. The right to make an investigatory stop "necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 455. Thus, it is necessary to assess every fact and circumstance of the situation in applying the constitutional standard of reasonableness. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 383, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1777-78, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686, 696 (2007) (indicating no easy-to-apply legal test exists to determine reasonableness of force under the Fourth Amendment).

A Bronx motel room search was found to be without exigent circumstances, as much as the government tried, but sustained on a strained reading of inevitable discovery because defendant's arrest made the room searchable. Defendant was wanted for a murder two weeks earlier upstate, and his hotel room was staked out, but the police got impatient, twice considering search warrants. United States v. Stokes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31513 (S.D. N.Y. March 7, 2012)*:

This is a tale of nine guns, a misguided prosecutor whose poor judgment jeopardized the safety of the public he is tasked to protect, and a motel clerk, who, by simply doing his job, has prevented the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary rule from becoming a suicide pact.

. . .

Defendant makes much of the fact that the officers made a strategic decision not to obtain a warrant in order to evade Defendant's right to counsel. The officers' subjective reason for proceeding without a warrant is not relevant to MacDonald's objective test. However, the surrounding facts do bear on the exigent circumstances determination. For instance, Detective Perrotta had time to make two separate attempts to secure a warrant prior to entering room 57; there were no exigencies between the time the Marshals located the Defendant and the time of the warrant requests, and nothing happened after Detective Perrotta's second conversation with ADA Chase to create a newfound urgency in apprehending the Defendant. Moreover, when Detective Perrotta decided to approach Defendant without a warrant, his mission shifted from effecting a quick arrest to reasoning with the Defendant and trying to convince him to cooperate. The Court cannot see any urgent need to enter the motel room where the officer's goal was to talk first and then detain. Ultimately, the officers had nothing more than probable cause to arrest a murder suspect. That probable cause, standing alone, is not enough get the officers into the motel room and, as a result, is not enough to sustain the Government's burden of proof with respect to the exigent circumstances exception to the exclusionary rule.

. . .

Even if Defendant left the bag in his room, a proposition the Court finds highly unlikely considering his demonstrated concern about protection from retaliation for Kareem Porter's stabbing, then cleaning staff would have found the open bag of firearms along with the ammunition, ring, and documents that were in fact recovered when they went into the room to prepare it for another guest. Just as he did with the ammunition, ring, and documents, the Court has no doubt that Mr. Patel, in the ordinary course of business, would have turned the firearms over to law enforcement. In other words, the fact that additional ammunition was inevitably discovered in room 57 gives the Court a high level of confidence that the firearms would have been inevitably discovered as well. Defendant makes two points in opposition. First, Defendant argues that his arrest did not terminate his rental of room 57, which was paid through July 13, 2010, and therefore he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room post-arrest such that police could not search property recovered by motel cleaning staff without a warrant. However, Defendant cites no authority in this Circuit in support of his argument, and at least one court had made findings to the contrary. See United States v. Wyche, 307 F. Supp. 2d 453, 460-61 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ("Wyche having been taken into custody on the basis of the witness identification, the police would have seized his luggage from his motel room. (It is unlikely that the motel owner would allow Wyche to indefinitely keep his belongings there.) ... Wyche's three weapons would have inevitably, and lawfully, been discovered in his duffel bag when the bag was later inventoried at the Fifth Precinct after Wyche's arrest."). Thus, if cleaning staff entered room 57 after Defendant's arrest but prior to the expiration of the rental period, found the bag of firearms, and turned it over to the police, there is no authority in this Circuit preventing law enforcement from searching the bag. Indeed, it is not at all clear that Defendant's expectation of privacy in a pre-paid motel room survives his arrest such that police could not enter the room or search items recovered from that room. See United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 34-35 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that "when a hotel guest's rental period has expired or been lawfully terminated, the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy" in the room or articles therein (emphasis added)); see also Patel Decl. ¶ 2 (noting motel policy of entering rooms to clean after tenants "check out or otherwise cease their stay").

Another self-fulfilling prophecy: We arrest you, then we can search your hotel room because you're not going back to it. That borders on the absurd, and is a clear manipulation of the Fourth Amendment. Let's just call this the "9-guns-in-a-motel-room exception to the Fourth Amendment."

An anonymous caller could be credited in a call about flight from a robbery where the facts of the call were corroborated by license number matching a vehicle with the same description of the getaway car and the excited nature of the event. In addition, “the anonymous call here may be comparable to an excited utterance. If a person wants to harass an enemy by providing false information to the police that would trigger an investigative stop, the person is unlikely to wait until the caller has just seen someone flee a crime scene.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 2012 Mass. LEXIS 131 (March 9, 2012).

Standing with a group of other young man in a high crime area, having no gang colors, walking away when the officers approached, and being out of breath when the officer stopped him was not reasonable suspicion. In Interest of J. B., 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 269 (March 9, 2012).*

SEATTLE (AP) — The U.S. Coast Guard on Sunday expanded the area it's searching for four people who disappeared from a fishing trawler off the Washington coast, but there's still no sign of them.

A distress signal came from the 70-foot Lady Cecelia early Saturday, and rescue crews searched through ...

SUN VALLEY, Idaho (AP) — The 18-year-old son of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver said Saturday he had been treated for injuries after getting in "a little ski accident" in Idaho.

Patrick Schwarzenegger tweeted that he received stitches "down the back and but [sic]" after the accident, and he also ...

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. (AP) — The Rev. Robert Schuller and his wife, Arvella, announced "with great sadness" Saturday that they had resigned from the board of directors of the Crystal Cathedral, the televangelist ministry he founded four decades ago and made famous through his "Hour of Power" television program.

Their ...

A parent who does not know the child’s computer password doesn’t have apparent authority it consent to a search of the computer; rejecting United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711 (10th Cir. 2007), as illogical and unwarranted. United States v. Griswold, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153943 (W.D. N.Y. June 2, 2011) (just now on Lexis):

The government does not argue that the Second Circuit has yet adopted the Andrus holding on apparent authority as to password protected computers and the reasoning behind the Andrus decision has been questioned by both a leading Fourth Amendment scholar and several law review student commentators. See 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 8.3(g) at 180 (4th ed. 2004, 2010-11 Supplement) (“Remarkably, the majority in Andrus, on these facts, upheld the search on an apparent authority basis.”); David D. Thomas, Note, Dangerously Sidestepping the Fourth Amendment: How Courts Are Allowing Third-Party Consent To Bypass Warrants for Searching Password-Protected Computers, 57 Clev. St. L. Rev. 279, 304-05 (2009) (It is constitutionally wrong to “allow police officers to skate around the Fourth Amendment by intentionally avoiding asking questions of third parties while obtaining consent, as well as allowing them to ignore password “locks” on computers that, as shown, courts have held to be analogous to locks on physical items.”); Michael J. Ticcioni, Comment, United States v. Andrus: Does the Apparent Authority Doctrine Allow Circumvention of Fourth Amendment Protection in the Warrantless Search of a Password-Protected Computer, 43 New Eng. L. Rev. 339, 355 (Winter 2009) (“The Tenth Circuit erred in its holding that law enforcement agents were reasonable in relying on the apparent authority of a ninety-one year old man to consent to a search of his son’s password-protected computer.”); Michael Smith, Survey, The Fourth Amendment, Password-Protected Computer Files and Third Party Consent Searches: The Tenth Circuit Broadens the Scope of Warrantless Searches, 85 Denv. U. L. Rev 701, 723 (2008) (“The Andrus rule essentially does three things: first, it removes the requirement for a third party consenter to have a key to a locked container; second, it replaces the key requirement with a government actor’s reasonable belief that there is no need for a key; and third, it allows the use of technology to bypass a key (or password) without first determining whether the container (or computer) is locked.”); Noah Stacy, Comments and Casenotes, Apparent Third Party Authority and Computers: Ignorance of the Lock is No Excuse, 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1431 (Summer 2008) (“The court’s holding sets a dangerous precedent under which law enforcement may evade the Fourth Amendment requirement of either a warrant or valid consent by claiming ignorance of any password protection and relying upon the apparent authority of a third party.”); Sarah M. Knight, Casenote, United States v. Andrus: Password Protect Your Roommate, Not Your Computer, 26 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 183, 184 (Fall 2008) (“As a consequence of this holding, third-parties can consent to searches beyond their authority, and individuals’ efforts to secure their data are rendered useless.”); John-Robert Skrabanek, Note, Apparent Authority in Computer Searches: Sidestepping the Fourth Amendment, 97 Ky. L.J. 721, 728-29 (2008-09) (“By allowing such searches, these courts have created the incentive for law enforcement not to ask questions.”). In addition, in responding to a petition for rehearing, the Tenth Circuit panel in Andrus issued a decision limiting its holding to the “narrow question” presented by the facts and was not controlling authority on facts not presented such as a situation where “law enforcement confronts password protection or user profiles on home computers.” United States v. Andrus, 499 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2007) (rehearing denied).

But aside from doubts as to its constitutional logic, the facts in Andrus are distinguishable in an important way from the search of Griswold’s laptop. In Andrus the court specifically relied on the fact that when the officers began opening files on the computer they were not aware (and did not inquire about) whether the computer was locked or password protected. “Even if [the defendant’s] computer was protected with a user name and password, there is no indication in the record that the officers knew or had reason to believe such protections were in place.” 483 F.3d at 721. Here, however, the proof is the opposite. Investigator Becker testified that before commencing the search he noted that “[t]he laptop was on and it showed a screen and it said Bryan on the screen and it said locked.” (Tr. at p. 67) (emphasis added). Instead of inquiring further about the fact that the computer was locked, Becker testified he then shut down the computer, inserted his special forensic software disk, booted up the computer, and then was able to “browse the hard drive without a password.” (Tr. at p. 67). The need for a password to enter an otherwise locked computer, known to Investigator Becker prior to opening any files and commencing his search, clearly indicated that Griswold had taken steps to protect his privacy and exclude others from looking at files on his laptop computer. At that point, without more information, it was unreasonable for the Investigators to assume that Mrs. Williamee had actual authority to consent to the search of her son’s laptop.

In sum, based on the totality of circumstances present here, I find that the government has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it was objectively reasonable for the Investigators to believe that Mrs. Williamee had the authority to consent to a search of a password protected laptop computer belonging to her eighteen year old son and retrieved from her son’s bedroom.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A Southern California woman says doctors predicted she would give birth to a big baby boy, but nobody was prepared for just how big.

Jayden Sigler weighed in at 13 pounds, 14 ounces, when the healthy boy was delivered Thursday by cesarean section, the North County ...

NYT: Police Officer Guilty of Falsifying Information by Russ Buettner:

A New York City police officer was convicted on Thursday of lying under oath and filing false information to obtain a search warrant, the second conviction in what prosecutors described as a scheme to cover up illegal searches of vehicles.

The officer, Michael Carsey, 31, was acquitted in September of other charges. His prior supervisor, William Eiseman, a former sergeant, pleaded guilty in June to performing illegal searches of cars and an apartment of people he had stopped, and then lying in court about why he had performed the searches.

The stop was justified and the questioning not so prolonged that the stop was unreasonably extended. The officers were not acting pursuant to SB 1070 or the part enjoined in United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011). United States v. Paramo-Villasana, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31075 (D. Ariz. March 8, 2012).*

Defendant’s broad attack on a long affidavit based on wiretaps and investigation for lack of a substantial basis for finding probable cause failed. There was such a basis and it was not stale. United States v. Bussell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153965 (E.D. Tenn. December 16, 2011).*

Plaintiffs’ complaint that the police could not come to their house after they called for the police after a prowler call and then attempted to terminate the encounter didn’t state a claim. Plaintiff was ordered to produce his gun because he was a felon. That, too, didn’t state a claim. Plaintiffs were also sanctioned attorney’s fees but didn’t properly appeal that order. Smith v. Bd. of County Comm'rs for Chaves, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4953 (10th Cir. March 9, 2012) (unpublished).*