Third Circuit: Carol Walker v. Brian Coffey

Production of work emails by a public university in response to a facially infirm subpoena did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, as there was no legitimate expectation of privacy in emails which an employer could freely disclose.  Dismissal without prejudice to allow a refiling for statutory claims.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172172p.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Joshua Pyles

As the arrest warrant for the owner of the car would have justified the stop if there had been a reasonable probability that she was in the car, police officer's initial statement that one passenger's gender was not clear suffices; later testimony that the officer believed all the passengers to be men is not sufficient contradiction to discount the narrative.

Sentencing court's taciturnity as to mental health factors did not rise to the level of procedural error.

Upward variance for criminal history was not an abuse of discretion.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0204p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna, et al

Aggressive nature of the knock-and-talk encounter can taint the subsequent consent to search.  When the person who gave consent to the search indicates that she doesn't want the police officers to go into a certain area, consent for that part of the search is withdrawn.  In these circumstances, the qualified immunity of the police officer presents an issue for trial.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-11708-CV0.pdf

Eleventh Circuit: Bob Glasscox v. Argo, City Of, etc.

Denial of qualified immunity for trigger-happy tasing of diabetic driver.  Driver's attempt to remove one of the taser wires might have been resistance (pun?)  but as the subsequent (fourth) tasing was underway already, it wasn't excused.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616804.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

Denial of qualified immunity for municipality policy authorizing police officers to surround a house, standing 5-7 feet from it before knocking on door to discuss a possible violation of the law, as the systematic invasion of the curtilage wasn't considered.  Immunity upheld for individual officers upheld, given evolving caselaw.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0199p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Daniel Stewart

No plain error in prolongation of traffic stop, given the minimal length of traffic stop.  Sufficient evidence for money laundering, given illicit source of funds.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-05/C:16-4105:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2212702:S:0

Sixth Circuit: Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

Denial of qualified immunity as a matter of law for officer's search of minor during traffic stop, as there is a question of whether the officer knew that there were minimal grounds for suspicion and that a dog search had turned up nothing; denial of qualified immunity as a matter of law for consensual search, as minor plaintiff was hancuffed, surrounded by police, had been stopped for an hour, and the search was apparently a precondition to using the restroom.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0198p-06.pdf

Ninth Circuit: US v. Raygoza-Garcia

The vehicle's innocent conduct created sufficiently particularized and objective reasonable suspicion for the stop, given the experience of the officers.

Special Concur: True according to precedent, but problematic to use innocent conduct as basis for border stops.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/31/16-50490.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Joseph Zadeh, et al v. Mari Robinson, et al

While the medical profession generally is not a closely regulated industry for the purpose of determining the legitimate expectation of privacy of its members, pain management clinics might be a different case.  Grant of qualified immunity upheld, as the scope of legitimate targets of administrative subpoenas was not clearly defined at the time.

Search not pretextual, as it was not conducted entirely to uncover criminality.

Court appropriately prudentially declined to hear application to stay state medical board's investigation, which can be considered a judicial proceeding.

Supervisor who acted according to the usual practices of the department was not deliberately indifferent to the potential harms of subdelegation.

Concur dubitante: @justicewillett -- QI problematic.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50518%20-CV0.pdf

Third Circuit: USA v. Theodore Clark, III

Traffic stop was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the questioning into criminal history continued past the point at which the computerized driver's licence check had been completed.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172739p.pdf

Second Circuit: United States v. Santillan

Traffic stop was reasonably prolonged after suspects were nervous and unable to explain where they were coming from.

Admission of statements arising from a discovery of money during patdown later admitted as inevitable discovery was harmless error.

Being placed in the back seat of the police car insufficiently custodial to require Miranda warning.

Passenger in car without a close relationship to the driver does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area around the passenger's seat, and therefore cannot object to a search.

Dissent: Generalized nervousness and presence of energy drinks are not a cause for suspicion; race is occasionally a factor; driver is not required to tell police where they are driving from.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b4d152a6-657c-4289-90dd-6ee87159ebe1/2/doc/16-1112com_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b4d152a6-657c-4289-90dd-6ee87159ebe1/2/hilite/

Second Circuit: United States v. Philip Zodhiates

Subpoena of cellular phone location records permissible under good faith exception via the third party doctrine.

A court order from a state in which the marriage was legal was entitled to full faith credit in the state of residence, which otherwise would not have recognized the marriage.  Prior circuit precedent holding the law of the state of residence to determine the applicable protections applies only in the absence of this type of direct mandate.

Prosecution statements in closing were permissible inferences.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/88b38eb6-51ce-4c1c-a328-b7ffd5f2edf9/2/doc/17-839_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/88b38eb6-51ce-4c1c-a328-b7ffd5f2edf9/2/hilite/

First Circuit: Boudreau v. Lussier

Expert testimony is required to establish that time-stamped screenshots taken of employees computer are, for purposes of the statute, contemporaneous intercepts of electronic communications.

Impoundment and subsequent inventory search of arrestee's vehicle from employer's private lot were justified under the community caretaker exception; even if the motive was investigatory, subjective intent is irrelevant, and the towing was objectively justified.

Employer defts would be protected by qualified immunity for consenting to search of employees computer where their authority to do so was not plain.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1049P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Soto-Cintron v. US

As the arresting officers' mistake was reasonable, given the message received on the radio, it would not have been actionable in a suit against the government -- as it was not actionable in that context, there is no private wrong to sound in tort.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1180P-01A.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Marcus Muhammad v. Del Pearson

Where contemporaneous documents establish that the warrant was vague due to clerical error, and that the vagueness was resolved by actual knowledge of the officers, the question can be resolved as a matter of law.

Arguable probable cause for arrest.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:15-3044:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2204382:S:0

Seventh Circuit: USA v. David Watson

Phone tip that children were playing with guns had insufficient indicia of criminality to justify blocking in of vehicle and subsequent searches.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:17-1651:J:Hamilton:con:T:fnOp:N:2204352:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Daniel Martinez v. City of Chicago

S1983 plaintiff has to carry the burden on all disputed questions, including exigent circumstances.

Probable cause for custodial detention in own home after police entry, given proximity to scene of crime. 

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:17-1888:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2203888:S:0

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Henry Reddick

After hash values of suspect images were flagged by the private vendor, subsequent opening of the files by law enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as the opening didn't expand the scope of the search.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41116-CR0.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Naperville Smart Meter Awarene v. City of Naperville

As it gives the government data that would be otherwise unavailable without a physical search, electrical consumption data collected at fifteen-minute intervals retained for a space of years constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.  Given the significant government interests in the program, the fact that excessive electricity use isn't a crime per se, and that, according to a guarantee sent to users by the utility, third parties, including law enforcement, need a warrant for access to customer data, the search is a reasonable one.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-16/C:16-3766:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2203659:S:0

Third Circuit: Corey Bland v. City of Newark

Qualified immunity for officers firing into car after car chase, as the chase was dangerous, the driver continued to verbally threaten them, and a recent carjacking had been armed, leading the police to think that the driver was armed.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172228p.pdf