Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Traffic violation and subsequent flight established probable cause for stop and placing the driver in handcuffs.
Plain-view exception allows a police officer to shine a flashlight through the windshield after all of the suspects have left the car.
No error in declining to instruct on the lesser included offense of possession, as there was insufficient evidence probative of likelihood for individual use.
(Seven uses of "Cleaned Up" signal in nine page opinion.)
Although there was insufficient circuit precedent on the question to allow for the good-faith exception to cell phone searches prior to the Supreme Court holding limiting them, the admission of the evidence from the search was harmless error.
NB: Prior to this post, cell phone cases, including historical location data, were tagged under "Computer Law."
The visits to the house by the seller of drugs during the transactions created a fair probability or sufficient common sense inference for a search warrant for the house.
The appropriateness of a no-knock warrant sounds in S1983 claims, not a suppression hearing.
During visual inspections of the bodies of convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees, the Fouth Amendment protects some right of bodily privacy.
Where such a search is used as punishment, the 8th Amendment is implicated.
In the absece of evidence that administrators have exaggerated the justification for the search, wide-ranging deference to the administrator.
Reasonableness hinges on scope, manner, justication, and place.
Claim for qualified immunity not raised in motion for summary judgment is waived for present appeal, but can be asserted on remand. Waived defenses cannot be raised on appeal, forfeited defenses can be reviewed for plain error.
Remedy of decertification of class would require a cross-appeal.
Warrant was sufficiently particular, as it specified the device to be searched and the offense for which the search was seeking evidence.
It would not have been reasonable to require the warrant affiant to explain where in the computer file structure the evidence was to be found.
Catch-all provision in warrant authorizing seizure of evidence of any and all other crimes was overbroad, but the remedy is to sever it from the otherwise sufficiently particular warrant.
Circuit precedent compels admissibility of evidence from plain view exception in a computer search.
Dissent:
Police had a sufficient theory of the case to explain the type of thing that they were looking for in the search.
If the warrant was flawed, plain view is out, since police could only seize the device.
No good faith exception for facially flawed warrant.
Given reasonable inferences to be drawn from the warrant application according to the deft's behoof, sufficient nexus between the property, the deft, and the alleged crime, as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Offense proscibed knowing crimal activity involving a certain type and quantity of drug, not necessarily the known involvement of a certain type and quantity of drug.
As there was no particular and objective basis for the Terry stop and the arrest of the foreign national was effectuated by handcuffing and placing into the patrol car prior to the contact with federal immigration authorities that gave probable cause for the arrest, S1983 suit against the officer states a claim.
As the actions of the Justice of the Police who called the officer to the courtroom upon leaning from a testifying witness that the plaintiff was in the country illegally were both a but/for cause and a proximate cause of the deprivation of 4A, the JP was a sufficiently integral participant for the purposes of a S1983 claim.
Circuit caselaw was clearly established at time, holding that lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence was insufficient probable cause for an arrest for illegal entry.
Warrant affidavit that didn't include any actual statements of the confidential informant was sufficiently backed by information from investigation, and the good faith exception would save in in any event.
Discretionary rulings during the cross of the deft -- opening the door to evidence of contraband and past convictions -- justify retrial given prior finding of improper ex parte communications between the prosecutor and the judge.