VoteKansas.org

Issue: “Should Article 1, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution be interpreted to require individualized probable cause of a code violation in a particular building, as a prerequisite to the issuance of an administrative search warrant, even though that position was rejected by the United States Supreme Court when it interpreted the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution 45 years ago?”

Syllabus: “Under Camara v. Mun. Ct., 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), reasonable inspections of rental property, conducted pursuant to warrants issued after a balancing of the need to protect public health and safety against the degree of intrusion upon privacy interests, may be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, even without a showing of individualized probable cause to believe that a particular dwelling is in violation of minimum standards prescribed by a building or safety code. A challenged Minnesota municipal ordinance that (a) requires advance notice to property owners and tenants; (b) limits inspections to ordinary business hours; (c) imposes restrictions on the scope of inspections; (d) prohibits the disclosure of information to law enforcement agencies unless an exception applies; and (e) requires a showing of reasonableness to obtain a warrant from a judicial officer is not facially invalid under Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.” McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 50 (June 11, 2012).

Atlantic.com: An Eye Without an 'I': Justice and the Rise of Automated Surveillance by Ross Andersen:

Over the past decade, video surveillance has exploded. In many cities, we might as well have drones hovering overhead, given how closely we're being watched, perpetually, by the thousands of cameras perched on buildings. So far, people's inability to watch the millions of hours of video had limited its uses. But video is data and computers are being set to work mining that information on behalf of governments and anyone else who can afford the software. And this kind of automated surveillance is only going to get more sophisticated as a result of new technologies like iris scanners and gait analysis.

Yet little thought has been given to the ethics of perpetually recording vast swaths of the world. What, exactly, are we getting ourselves into?

The fact that a search under the automobile exception happened at the police station after the vehicle was removed was not unreasonable under the circumstances. "'[T]he question is not whether the police could have done something different, but whether their actions, when viewed as a whole, were objectively reasonable.'" State v. Minitee, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 672 (June 14, 2012):

Moreover, we do not consider it fatal to the validity of this search that by the time it took place the vehicle had been at police headquarters for some period of time. The difficulties the police faced were exacerbated by the multiple sites that had to be carefully examined for clues with respect to the identity of the perpetrators, the critical need to locate the handgun Baldwin told the police he had discarded when he was on the run, as well as by the fact that the events were not unfolding during normal business hours but, rather, close to midnight and the hours beyond in the dead of winter. The confluence of those multiple factors lead us to conclude that the actions of the police were reasonable under the circumstances. "'[T]he question is not whether the police could have done something different, but whether their actions, when viewed as a whole, were objectively reasonable.'" State v. O'Donnell, 203 N.J. 160, 162 (2010) (quoting State v. Bogan, 200 N.J. 61, 81 (2009)). It is only searches that are objectively unreasonable that run afoul of constitutional principles. State v. O'Hagen, 380 N.J. Super. 133, 141 (App. Div. 2005), aff'd, 189 N.J. 140 (2007) (upholding requirement that upon conviction defendant provide a DNA sample). Nothing within Pena-Flores would lead us to conclude that the search of this vehicle was objectively unreasonable in the totality of the circumstances.

Retaining defendant’s drivers license while asking pointed questions about potentially illegal conduct was a seizure because the defendant would not feel free to go. State v. Scott, 966 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. App. March 1, 2012), ordered published March 16, 2012.

Defendants failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of material falsity to get a Franks hearing. United States v. Neal, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81849 (E.D. Tenn. April 13, 2012).*

The district court concluded that defendant’s rationale for consenting was that he hoped that the police wouldn’t find what they were looking for, but they did. That was a reasonable interpretation of the facts supported by the evidence. “That was a rational gamble, but one that Welch lost. Welch's consent was not coerced, just constrained, by having to place his bet on one of two poor alternatives. Maybe if he let them in, the police would want to get the search done quickly and fail to find his contraband. Or maybe if he put them to the trouble of getting a search warrant, they would search more thoroughly because he had inconvenienced them.” United States v. Welch, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12001 (11th Cir. June 13, 2012).*

Defendant left property with another while he was incarcerated. This was not formalized, but it was a relationship what was more than just a subjective expectation of privacy. Contrary to the government’s argument, it was not precipitous, like the cases where the defendant gave drugs to somebody to store just before the police arrived. Accordingly, the court will get to the merits of the search claim, and the government is ordered to respond. United States v. Eldridge, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81442 (W.D. N.Y. June 12, 2012).*

Defendant’s IAC claim against defense counsel for not filing a motion to suppress is denied because the guilty plea expressly waived it. United States v. Ortiz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81137 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2012).*

Defendant was stopped for alleged DUI, and made to go through a field sobriety test. She was tested for alcohol and drugs. A jury question remained on whether the officer just made it up to justify the stop. Green v. Throckmorton, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11930, 2012 FED App. 0175P (6th Cir. June 13, 2012).*

Guest standing here is speculative without a better showing by the defense. United States v. Wix, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81871 (W.D. Ky. June 13, 2012)*:

Too many questions exist to accurately measure Defendants' legitimate expectation of privacy in the mobile home. How often did Defendants spend the night in the mobile home and on the Property? The Court cannot possibly measure with any accuracy the subjective statement of Dozier that Wix and she stayed there "a lot." When was the last time Dozier and Wix were guests in the mobile home? Dozier admitted during her testimony that she did not spend the previous night in the trailer and the Court does not have additional information on the subject. Did Defendants have permission to stay there from the owner, Clifford Wix? It may be safe to assume so, but no direct evidence on this point was presented during either hearing. Were there any personal belongings of Defendants in the mobile home? Dozier did not offer any proof on this matter and Wix's silence is impossible to measure. Were Defendants providing Clifford Wix some sort of compensation to stay in the mobile home? Again, there is a deficiency in the record on this issue. Did Defendants have a key to mobile home and could they come and go without first obtaining permission from Clifford Wix? No relevant information was offered in this regard. The only verifiable information about which the Court can be sure is Defendants did not own the mobile home and they did not stay there the night before the police raided the Property. 1 HR, DN 41 p. 9-10.

The use of “electronic devices” and “electronic memory devices” in the search warrant was not overbroad because it had to be interpreted in terms of the last limiting phrase, to locate an alleged missing person. Child pornography was found. United States v. Triplett, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11987 (5th Cir. June 13, 2012):

Triplett lists some of the wide variety of devices with electronic memories. He argues that the warrant description was overbroad. We find limiting guidance for the officers in the warrant. It stated that the objects were relevant "to locate Kaila Morris," informing the officers that the proper electronic memory devices were those on which information on her location could be preserved. The arguably vague terms were among a list of other items to be seized described in greater detail. The warrant called for the seizure of "all articles of clothing of Kaila Morris, bed sheets, electronic devices, electronic memory devices, cell phone, DNA, hand digging and cutting tools, vehicles, and utility vehicles." See 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.6(d), at 628 (4th ed. 2004) (noting that a general reference "at the end of a list of specific items may be upheld on the theory that the language of a warrant is to be construed in light of an illustrative list of seizable items" (quotation marks and citation omitted)). The list was of evidence likely in Triplett's possession and relevant to his interactions with Kaila Morris, who had just been reported missing. See United States v. Hibbard, 963 F.2d 1100, 1102 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding enough particularity when warrant "limited the search to locating Shelly Ramsey or any evidence relating to her").

ABAJ.com: Judge Orders DA to Give Lawyer Copies of Documents Seized in Police Raid of His Law Office by Martha Neil:

A state-court judge has ordered the local district attorney's office to provide to a New York lawyer copies of all documents seized during a police raid last week of his law office.

Ezequiel Neuman, 51, doesn't know what his court schedule is because his calendar was seized, defense attorney Edward Menkin told Onondaga County Judge Anthony Aloi. He ordered that copies of the documents be provided to Neuman during a ruling from the bench on Tuesday morning, the Post-Standard reports.

Neuman was arrested last week on a felony charge of bribing a witness. He is accused of offering a client $50,000 not to testify in a murder case.

NetworkWorld.com: Bill proposes to protect Americans' privacy from warrantless drone surveillance by Ms. Smith:

Didn't hear anyone yell "Fore," yet wonder if that is a golf ball in the sky? It's not; it's a drone and it's coming. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano warned about the "coming use of drones - some as small as golf balls - to watch us, listen to us and record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don't know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining."

Although Secrecy News reported the Senate Armed Services Committee said drones need to operate 'freely and routinely' in America, you can add Senator Rand Paul to that "few" who are raising a ruckus about drones. Senator Paul proposed a bill to prevent warrantless drone surveillance. He said, "The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect American's personal privacy. Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics."

"A drone is a very, very powerful way of snooping on behavior," Sen. Paul told CNN.

ABAJ.com: Feds Raid Utah Law Offices in Probe of Loan Modification Work by Martha Neil:

Multiple federal agencies including the FBI, IRS and the office of the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program raided three offices affiliated with a Utah law firm Tuesday.

The U.S. Attorney's office in Utah confirmed the raid on the CC Brown Law Office in Midvale and West Valley City, in cooperation with local authorities, but said the search warrant is sealed and no criminal charges have been filed, according to a local ABC News affiliate and Salt Lake Tribune.

Driving in a high crime area, eye contact with officer, and furtive movement like toward a gun was reasonable suspicion. State v. Norfolk, 2012 Mo. LEXIS 107 (June 12, 2012).*

The district court’s verdict in a bench trial, inter alia, that subpoenaing records of cell phone calls was reasonable was affirmed on credibility of witnesses. Cunningham v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov't, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11902 (5th Cir. June 12, 2012).*

“While the fact that Whisnant did not understand he could refuse consent to search is a factor to consider in determining whether consent was voluntary, police do not have to inform an individual of his right to refuse to consent to a search. ... Likewise, when requesting an individual's consent to search a vehicle, police are not required to inform the individual that others could object to the search. Nor are police required to obtain the consent of all the occupants of a vehicle in order to search it. ... In this case, the alleged consenter himself testified repeatedly that he consented to the search and never testified that he felt coerced into doing so by the factors cited by Collins or by any other factors. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Whisnant's consent was valid.” United States v. Collins, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11828, 2012 FED App. 0173P (6th Cir. June 12, 2012).*

Merely alleging there was a basis for a suppression motion that was not filed does not allege IAC under Strickland. United States v. Action, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81137 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2012):

[B]y arguing that "there was a sufficient basis to file a motion to suppress," and that the defense "had nothing to lose and everything to gain" by filing the motion, Defendant does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant must do more than allege there were grounds for filing the motion; he must prove that the motion would have been granted. He must move beyond asserting that there was no downside to filing the motion; he must establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to file the motion, the result of his proceeding would have been different.

Defendant’s repeated refusal to remove his hands from his pockets during a traffic stop became reasonable suspicion. United States v. Fletcher, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79795 (M.D. Tenn. June 8, 2012).*

When defendant’s DL was called in, there was a note to call his federal PO, which happened. That did not unreasonably extend the length of the stop. United States v. Campbell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81083 (E.D. Tenn. May 22, 2012).*

The excuse for stopping the defendant was that the license plate looked counterfeit, but it was apparent that it was not, and the reason for the stop thus evaporated. There is no law prohibiting a driver from using the roads of this country with a Mexican driver’s license. The officer called for a tow truck without any reason, and then conducted a rummaging search that was a purported inventory. The government’s failure to raise standing until the suppression hearing was waiver of the issue because it prejudiced defendant’s ability to prove standing. United States v. Garcia-Medina, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80620 (D. Utah June 8, 2012):

It is well-established that an inventory search may not be used as a ruse for a general search. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S. Ct. 1632, 109 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990) ("Our view that standardized criteria or established routine must regulate the opening of containers found during inventory searches is based on the principle that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.") (internal citations omitted). ...

Here, Trooper Sheets did not write anything down. He was not methodical in his search. He was tapping and rummaging, looking for something hidden. He called for a drug-sniffing dog without any basis for suspecting that drugs were present. And he made that request almost immediately after he requested the tow truck, even though at that point in the stop he had not asked Mr. Garcia-Medina questions to dispel his concerns about the driver's license, Mr. Garcia-Medina's residency in Arizona, or anything else of substance. The court finds that the purported inventory search was a pretext for investigating criminal activity and so it violated Mr. Garcia-Medina's Fourth Amendment rights.

Thermal imaging neighborhoods: Reason Magazine: Public Defender in GA: Cops Can't Use Thermal Images of Possible Grow Lights For Search Warrants by Matthew Feeney:

A public defender in Georgia is hoping to have his client's case dismissed by a Georgia Superior Court after claiming that evidence against his client was illegally obtained. James Brundgie has been charged with the manufacture of marijuana, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled substance after a judge approved a warrant to search his property after thermal imaging detected a 'hot spot' in his garage. If the search warrant is upheld it will be a worrying precedent to set as police forces and other agencies will be able to justify thermal imaging of entire neighborhoods in search of similar 'hot spots'.

The public defender, Benjamin Pearlman, is rightly arguing that the warrant should never have been issued as Georgia law states that a warrant may not be issued 'for anything other than physical, tangible evidence.' It is hard to see exactly how a thermal scan fits into the category of physical or tangible evidence.

While state law may say "tangible evidence," the Fourth Amendment is not so limited, so this is a state law argument only.

The judicially-created exclusionary rule is not applicable in a civil, administrative driver's license revocation or suspension proceeding. Miller v. Toler, 2012 W. Va. LEXIS 293 (June 6, 2012).*

Defendant’s truck was under surveillance near the border with Mexico for 72 hours, and officers suspected drugs in an auxiliary fuel tank, which had become common at the time. All the factors involving this vehicle pointed to reasonable suspicion because of the suspicious activities with the truck of proximity to the border. The officers suspected that the vehicle could have been driven across the river at a shallow point. United States v. Mark, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11751 (5th Cir. June 11, 2012).*

On the totality, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was carrying drugs in his car. [Note the court mentions consent was denied, but this is not mentioned later as a factor in reasonable suspicion.] State v. Smith, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 776 (Mo. App. June 11, 2012)*:

Here, Appellant was first legitimately stopped for two traffic violations. Already knowing that Appellant had just left a residence known for drug activity, Officer Buske first made contact with Appellant and was struck by Appellant's nervousness, sweating, and shaking. Further, he recognized Appellant from dealing with him on previous occasions and knew of his history of drug use and criminal activity. It was at this point that Officer Buske requested to search Appellant's vehicle and Appellant denied that request such that Officer Buske made the decision to request a police dog to sniff the vehicle which was done in an expeditious manner.

Defendant’s conduct was suspicious enough to permit the officers to conduct a protective weapons sweep of his car for weapons, even though he was in the patrol car at the time. Long specifically permitted it. State v. Broughton, 2012 Ohio 2526, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 2227 (10th Dist. June 7, 2012).*

Defendant’s hiding his hand during a traffic stop that would have made the officer fear he was going for a gun made it reasonable for the officer to pull his weapon and order defendant out. United States v. Bost, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80523 (E.D. Tenn. May 3, 2012).*

The search warrant was for “53 West James Circle,” which ostensibly was a duplex, but further investigation had revealed that the duplex was being converted into one unit with one driveway, one water meter, finally learning that it had “a mother-in-law suite” accessible from the common area inside. The search warrant was valid and particular. Conrad v. State, 2012 Ga. App. LEXIS 507 (June 8, 2012).*

Strip searches of everybody at the jail, even those not going into general population, might be unreasonable even under Florence which left that question open, but, for civil liability, the question is “clearly established law,” and it’s not. Wamble v. County of Jones, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79969 (S.D. Miss. June 8, 2012)*:

In the wake of Florence, the central question is whether Merrill violated clearly established law by allegedly participating in the search of Wamble. Merrill argues that he could not have violated clearly established law because the Florence Court left "open the possibility of exceptions" to the blanket rule that newly arrested persons may be strip-searched without reasonable suspicion if they are going to be booked into the general population of a detention facility. Florence, 132 S. Ct. at 1523 (Roberts, J., concurring).

When there is an "open question" as to whether certain conduct is unconstitutional, the law cannot be considered clearly established. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 535 (1985) (holding that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because "[t]he decisive fact is not that Mitchell's position turned out to be incorrect, but that the question was open at the time he acted"); Shepard v. Ripperger, 57 Fed. App'x 270, 272 (8th Cir.2003) ("Because the legality of refusing to identify oneself to police is an open question, it is not clearly established law for the purpose of denying qualified immunity." (citations omitted)); Polk v. District of Columbia, 121 F. Supp. 2d 56, 70 -71 (D.D.C.,2000) ("In both Davis v. Scherer and Mitchell v. Forsyth, the Supreme Court's holdings that the law was not clearly established turned on the fact that there was an 'open question' whether the Constitution outlawed the conduct at issue." (citations omitted)).

Thus, "[g]iven the Supreme Court's express reservation of the question of whether" detainees who are not going to be held overnight in a cell with other inmates may be strip-searched without a reasonable suspicion, the "contours" of Wamble's right to be free from unreasonable searches are "not sufficiently clear that the unlawfulness" of the search to which he was subjected would be "apparent" to all reasonable officials.

A suspicionless supervision condition was imposed on defendant “based on the facts in this case—involving violence, threats, and a firearm.” Defendant threatened to hunt down and kill anybody involved in her conviction, and that threat made the suspicionless search condition reasonable. State v. Rowan, 2012 WI 60, 2012 Wisc. LEXIS 356 (June 8, 2012):

[*18] We next turn to the second part of the test relating to the constitutionality of the condition of extended supervision, including persons released on community supervision such as probation and parole. We conclude that the condition is, under the circumstances presented here, reasonably related to Rowan's rehabilitation. A condition is reasonably related to a person's rehabilitation "if it assists the convicted individual in conforming his or her conduct to the law." It is also appropriate for circuit courts to consider an end result of encouraging lawful conduct, and thus increased protection of the public, when determining what individualized probation, extended supervision, or parole conditions are appropriate for a particular person. Unsurprisingly, public safety is often mentioned in connection with the goal of rehabilitation: decreased criminality and greater public safety are logically connected to successful rehabilitation efforts. The trial in this case included evidence of the defendant's repeated explicit threats to shoot law enforcement officers and medical professionals and their family members, as well as evidence of the handgun and ammunition recovered from her vehicle, where it had been unlawfully concealed. In light of the circumstances that resulted in her conviction for battery to a law enforcement officer, the condition at issue was reasonably related to Rowan's rehabilitation, because her diminished right to be free from search was designed to assist her in "conforming [her] conduct to the law" by recognizing that her prior criminal conduct demonstrated a pattern involving guns and violent threats. Giving her an increased incentive to refrain from possessing a gun again was reasonably related to her rehabilitation. It is clear that Rowan's successful rehabilitation would also serve the interest of public protection and safety.

Suspicionless condition of supervised release search was appropriate here. Blakney v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79755 (D. S.D. June 8, 2012).*

NYTimes.com: Stop-and-Frisk Policy ‘Saves Lives,’ Mayor Tells Black Congregation by Kate Taylor:

As criticism of the Police Department’s so-called stop-and-frisk policy grows louder, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took to the pulpit before a black congregation in Brooklyn on Sunday to make his most forceful and nuanced defense of the practice yet, arguing that it had helped make New York the safest big city in the country, while acknowledging that the police needed to treat those whom they stopped with greater respect.

Defendant agreed to a knock-and-talk at his gate, and the officers’ insistence on coming inside violated the curtilage and the scope of consent. Ferrer v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9211 (Fla. 2d DCA June 8, 2012):

We reject the State's contention that once Ferrer opened the locked gate, general "knock-and-talk" principles authorized the deputies to proceed to the front door area. See, e.g., State v. Navarro, 19 So. 3d 370, 372-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The State argues that because the officers were free to proceed to the front door of the house to knock and talk, the evidence of marijuana was legally obtained under the "plain smell" doctrine. The flaw in this argument is that it does not recognize that the deputies' encounter with Ferrer at the gate was a knock and talk encounter. Rather than leaving his property open for any member of the public to enter, Ferrer had taken steps to keep out uninvited visitors by fencing it and erecting an electric gate across his driveway, thereby demonstrating an expectation of privacy. Cf. Nieminski v. State, 60 So. 3d 521, 525-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding no violation of privacy where officers entered fenced property through a closed, but unlocked, gate). Thus, while officers were free to approach the gate to conduct a knock and talk—which they did—the area inside the fence fell under the same constitutional protections as the residence itself, and the officers were not at liberty, absent consent, to approach the residence. Compare Fernandez v. State, 63 So. 3d 881, 883-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fenced yard adjacent to his residence and that the momentary opening of the gate to allow the defendant to leave was not an invitation for police to enter); with State v. Triana, 979 So. 2d 1039, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (finding no constitutional violation where the police had a consensual encounter with the defendant outside of the locked gate to the defendant's property and the defendant agreed to a search and opened the gate to allow the police to enter). [¶] It is undisputed that the only thing Ferrer consented to was to speak to the officers "on the other side of the gate." ...