Seventh Circuit: Katrina Walker v. Carl Weatherspoon

Uncorroborated tip sufficient for warrant.

Non-jurisdictional cutoff date for appeals waived, since the rules aren't jurisdictional, and  the gov't described the brief as "early"

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-13/C:17-2665:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2201016:S:0

Tenth Circuit: Clark v. Colbert

Firing of non-lethal rounds at a contained, psychotic fellow with a knife who refused to submit to arrest was not an unconstitutionally excessive use of force.

Appeal of state tort claim waived as only one of three independent grounds for denial was addressed.

Appeal of municipal liability under ADA waived for insufficient development of grounds for appeal.

Jail nurse's refusal to allow follow-up appointment with doctor, resulting in an improperly knit bone healing, did not rise to the level of conscious disregard of an excessive risk to health or safety.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-7046.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Malik Farrad

Sufficient evidence for the finder of fact to have determined that the gentleman in the Facebook photos with the gun was the deft.

Social media photos are not self-authenticating business records, but there is no need for the identity of the page to be established -- the identity of the subject of the photo is a matter for the finder of fact, and are admissible so long as there is sufficient evidence that they are what they appear to be.

Shaky qualifications for expert testimony on Facebook photo-posting habits of suspects ultimately harmless.

Predicate offenses properly counted for sentencing where each is defined as happening on or about a certain day, despite being connected by a common conspiracy.

No plain error in counting convictions in absentia as predicate convictions.

Sentence increase due to predicate offenses didn't need to be separately charged.

Warrant not defective when it identifies the Facebook data as present in the jurisdiction.

Year and a half delay after service of warrant on FB didn't invalidate the warrant.

Execution of warrant outside of district not plain error, cf. 2703(A). 

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0141p-06.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Powell

App developer's sending of screenshots to a private actor working as an agent of the gov't did not trigger the private search doctrine, as the second party's search was precisely coterminous with that of the app developers, and no new information could have been obtained in the second search.

[Seems to be an obvious typo in the First Circuit's URL for this on the public-facing page.  This link is to the opinion list, which will likely be corrected by now. Search for case # 17-1683]

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/opinions

First Circuit: US v. Barbosa

Deft did not make sufficient showing for a Franks hearing, as misstatement of ages and sizes didn't impugn the narrative, and forcible entry isn't an element of the state's crime of armed home invasion; nothing in a more full investigation of the victims' delay in reporting or checking the victims for outstanding warrants would have put the terms of the affidavit in doubt.

Given circuit precedent, ACCA predicates are valid, including a conviction with a maximum sentence under the terms of the statute, but within the statute's range when prosecuted in state court.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1284P-01A.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Robin Kirkland Neal v. Daniel Ficcadenti

Given circuit precedent holding that tackling a fully compliant suspect by the legs was a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable force during arrest, police should have been aware that tackling a fully compliant suspect by the arms would similarly offend; denial of qualified immunity upheld.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172633P.pdf

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Jorge Robles-Avalos

Border Patrol agent had sufficient articulable grounds for suspicion to stop the vehicle, as it was an unusual vehicle for the road, midnight, a known rendezvous point for migrants, and, in the course of the surveillance, more passengers appeared in the car.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-51037-CR0.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Deuvontay Charles

Omission of the fact that the residence to be searched was only an occasional residence does not justify suppression of the evidence, as a neutral magistrate could have found probably cause to search an occasional residence.  Requirement to register on a predatory offender registry is sufficient to trigger penalties for committing an offense while on an offender registry.  Conciliation court document for county's suit against the mother of the victim is insufficient proof to establish within the court's discretion the restitution due the county.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172391P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Tong Moua

As the trial court is best positioned to judge the facts, sufficient evidence for robbery conviction where a single witness who had earlier identified another person made an in-court identification, deft was seen in a vehicle that was later found near a robbery with incriminating writing-pad impressions, warrantless cell-phone location data placed the deft near the robberies, and items of clothing similar to those seen during the robbery were found at the apartment.  Sentence substantively not unreasonable.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172046P.pdf

Third Circuit: Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA

Since the Act distinguishes officers from employees, the purpose of the Act is to circumscribe and define federal tort liability, and subsequent caselaw, only criminal law enforcement officers are within the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity; airport security officers are not within this group, as they merely perform administrative searches.

Dissent: Act unambiguously includes investigative officers; airport security are officers of the United States empowered to conduct searches for violations of federal law; these searches go far beyond the level of an administrative search.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153047p.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Terance Morice Highbull

Police officer's question "Do you have the phone" was insufficient to establish that the private citizen was an agent of law enforcement when she searched the vehicle for the phone, as the search was not requested, and the citizen had sufficient private motive to look for the phone.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172728P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Sheldon Thompson v. Ray Singleton

Denial of qualified immunity upheld, as the characterization of the petitioner as confrontational was a contested fact for trial, and therefore couldn't be used to establish that there was no controlling precedent prohibiting the officer's tasing of the petitioner.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/164080P.pdf

Second Circuit: United States v. Gasperini

No plain error from claimed unconstitutional vagueness of statute (CFAA), as the conduct here was squarely within the core prohibition.

As the statute (SCA) does not provide for the exclusion of evidence as a remedy, no abuse of discretion in allowing evidence from extraterritorial searches.

Mere gov't request to foreign agency is not enough to bring the subsequent extraterritorial search under the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Internet archive screenshots properly admitted as business records, given testimony by staffers that they were created in the course of business.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ba81dc4-9c50-470e-9f2d-3feefa265ae5/1/doc/17-2479_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2ba81dc4-9c50-470e-9f2d-3feefa265ae5/1/hilite/

Eleventh Circuit: Cozzi v. Thomas

Denial of qualified immunity for arrest when tips merely established present location of suspect, and that he matched the description; as tattoos were not examined and a bag of 32 pills was insufficient indication that suspect had taken six during the robbery, arrest was not arguably within reasonable suspicion.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201711011.pdf

Tenth Circuit: United States v. Vance

If the traffic stop on a theory of presenting a hazard to others was due to a mistake of law, it was a reasonable mistake of law, given the state's law about changing lanes.

As an element of the lane-changing law is the driver's omission of checking to see if the lane is clear, the police had reasonable cause for the stop in order to determine if the required visual check had been performed.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2008.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Jamal Cooper

Wiretap Act does not require a different application for each authorization, but merely that each application conform to the Act.

No clear error in authorizing the tap where many of the alternatives were discounted prospectively.

No error in denial of Franks hearing where the challenged omissions on the affidavit might be construed from the contents of the affidavit.

Sealing and delivery of tapes four days after the end of the tap did not transgress the two-day limit, as the government needed to confirm that the deft was no longer using that line.

Where trial judge accepts govt contention at trial that the content of the recorded conversation establishes that the confidential informant consented to the taping, no clear error in the admission of the tapes.

Parolee confidential informers can validly consent to the taping of conversations.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0116p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Comsys Incorporated v. Frank Pacetti

While the restrictions on freedom of speech while in the employ of the government apply to contracted corporations and their employees, where the line between protected and unprotected speech is ambiguous, qualified immunity protects the government from claims of unlawful retaliation.

As the Fourth Amendment only protects against invasion by public actors, accessing of email records by employee of contracted corporation did not violate; the question of direction by state actors is ambiguous enough to warrant qualified immunity.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2053:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173897:S:0

Seventh Circuit: US v. Larry Norton

Where conflicting testimony at trial suggests that deft was zero to five mph over the speed limit, no clear error in holding that traffic stop at prompting of drug task force didn't violate the Fourth Amendment.

Admission of informant's statements on recording, if hearsay, was harmless error, as they merely provided useful context for others statements.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-20/C:17-2898:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2173776:S:0

Fourth Circuit: US v. Edward Kehoe

One anonymous tip and one named tip sufficed for the search of the deft, given that the location was known to be the type of bar where people might drink with concealed weapons.

Court's instruction to counsel to consider why a caucasian person might have brought a gun to a predominantly african-american bar was egregious, but it didn't taint the proceeding, as the tips could still be weighed, and argument wasn't impeded.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/174536.P.pdf

Second Circuit: Simon v. City of New York

Denial of qualified immunity for custodial arrest and interrogation over the course of two days on the basis of a warrant issued to produce the arrestee in court at a certain time for a hearing to determine if she should be detained as a material witness.  Although the procedures violated a state statute, the variance from the terms on the face of the warrant created a Fourth Amendment violation.  Sufficiently clear to be contrary to law despite lack of on-point precedent in the circuit.

Arrestee's return to the police station on the next day was not voluntary, given instruction to do so and reminder that police had an arrest warrant for her.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c248c3bb-2a44-49a0-968d-6c71d649d45e/1/doc/17-1281_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c248c3bb-2a44-49a0-968d-6c71d649d45e/1/hilite/