VoteKansas.org

Requesting identification of everybody in a parked car was not an investigative detention under Hiibel. Commonwealth v. Au, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 982 (April 26, 2012) (dissent).

Error in the body of the affidavit that included another person [apparently from the computer cut and paste] was a mere “scrivener’s error.” One could tell who was the target of the search from the totality of the affidavit. United States v. De La Torre, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58884 (E.D. Okla. February 16, 2012).

There was a swearing match as to whether a particular controlled buy occurred before a search warrant was issued, and the district court found that it did. That was enough for a search warrant to issue, and the district court’s determination was binding. The officer omitted some information from the affidavit about the CI’s credibility, but, if it was included, the warrant would have issued anyway. Finally, there was probable cause and the good faith exception applied. United States v. Richardson, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8629 (5th Cir. April 27, 2012).*

Anticipatory search warrant failed here because there was no probability that the drugs would be found in a particular place. Commonwealth v. Wallace, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 981 (April 26, 2012):

As the parties recognize, the United States Supreme Court, in Grubbs, established two requirements which an affidavit of probable cause in support of an anticipatory search warrant must meet under the Fourth Amendment: (1) "there is probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur;" and (2) "if the triggering condition occurs 'there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'" Grubbs, 547 U.S. at 96-97 (emphasis omitted). The high Court also held that "[t]he supporting affidavit must provide the magistrate with sufficient information to evaluate both aspects of the probable-cause determination." Id. at 97.

The high Court has made abundantly plain that the triggering event itself must be probable, and thus that an anticipatory search warrant for a search of a person's home may not be issued solely upon a claim that fruits of a crime will be found inside if a triggering event, such as delivery of contraband to the home, takes place and the warrant is executed. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Grubbs, explicitly and aptly cautioned in this regard: "If that were the extent of the probability determination, an anticipatory warrant could be issued for every house in the country, authorizing search and seizure if contraband should be delivered — though for any single location there is no likelihood that contraband will be delivered." Id. at 96 (parentheses and emphasis omitted).

. . .

Likewise, this affidavit of probable cause contained a paucity of information concerning the basis of knowledge for the informant's assertion that he could purchase drugs at Appellant's home at the time and date specified in the affidavit. The means by which the confidential informant learned of "Greg's" cocaine sales and the use of his car to deliver narcotics was not set forth in the affidavit, and there was no other evidence provided in the affidavit which would tend to corroborate the truth of these allegations. There was no factual basis in the affidavit which established that the confidential informant had any past relationship with "Greg," ever witnessed "Greg" in possession of drugs, or, critically, had been inside of Appellant's home recently and observed drugs stored there. Furthermore, there were no facts in the affidavit which suggested that the confidential informant had, at any time, personally purchased drugs from "Greg," or witnessed "Greg" selling drugs at any location, let alone at Appellant's home. In short, the affidavit contained only the informant's bare assertion that he could effectuate a controlled purchase at Appellant's home at a particular time.

The CI contacted the police within the previous 48 hours to say that he saw that the defendant had a marijuana grow operation, but didn’t specify when it was that he saw it. This was stale under the state constitution, and the court refuses to apply the totality of circumstances test to this situation. State v. Lyons, 2012 Wash. LEXIS 328 (April 26, 2012), revg State v. Lyons, 160 Wn. App. 100, 247 P.3d 797 (2011).

Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation, and the smell of marijuana came from the car when the window was opened. A drug dog went into the car and alerted on the console, producing roach. The smell of marijuana was reasonable suspicion; the dog alert was probable cause. State v. Chinn, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 552 (La. App. 5th Cir. April 24, 2012).*

A child sex abuse victim’s story that defendant supplied him with alcohol and had a camera out was sufficient to show probable cause to search for the camera to see if there were pictures on it. The police also had an allegation from 2002 of defendant in possession of naked children in pictures. United States v. Westerlund, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8392, 2012 FED App. 0440N (6th Cir. April 25, 2012).*

NEW YORK — An out-of-control SUV barreled across several lanes of traffic on a highway overpass Sunday, then plunged more than 50 feet off the side of the road and landed in a ravine on the grounds of the Bronx Zoo, killing all seven people aboard, including three children, authorities ...

ST. LOUIS — St. Louis officials are expected to more closely scrutinize the large tents commonly set up near downtown stadiums after one of the temporary structures collapsed in high winds Saturday, resulting in the death of an Illinois man and dozens of injuries after a baseball game.

Sam Dotson, ...

LOS ANGELES — New research sends a stark warning to overweight teens: If you develop diabetes, you'll have a very tough time keeping it under control.

A major study, released Sunday, tested several ways to manage blood sugar in teens newly diagnosed with diabetes and found that nearly half of ...

TOOMSBORO — A developer in south Georgia is looking for someone to buy a small town.

Toomsboro, a small community with about 700 residents, has one convenience store, a florist, a custom cabinet shop and a post office. The Coastal Courier reports that developer David Bumgardner, who owns many of ...

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Famed pastor Joel Osteen captivated and overwhelmed our nation's capital over the weekend with more than 40,000 people at Nationals Park. His prosperity message was in full gear when he delivered his feel-good sermon to the faithful.

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Mr. Osteen - who also recently ...

DIXON, Ill. — The small-town bookkeeper dazzled friends and co-workers with invitations to her immaculate horse ranch and home, where she displayed trophies brought back from world championship exhibitions and offered for sale some of the best-bred horses in the nation.

"She has a trophy case that you wouldn't believe ...

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — When deadly twisters chewed through the South and Midwest in 2011, thousands of people in the killers' paths had nowhere to hide. Now, many of those families are taking an unusual extra step to be ready next time: adding tornado shelters to their homes.

A year ...

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A fast-moving storm ripped a large beer tent near Busch Stadium from its moorings and sent it and debris hurtling through the air Saturday, killing one person, seriously injuring several others and causing a panic among the many Cardinals fans inside.

The tent collapse at Kilroy's ...

NEW YORK (AP) — An out-of-control van plunged off a roadway Sunday afternoon near the Bronx Zoo in New York City, killing seven people, including three children, authorities said.

Fire Department spokesman Jim Long said the victims were an 84-year-old man; three women, ages 80, 45 and 30; and three ...

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — Andrew Young first saw John Edwards speak at an oceanfront hotel in 1998. He was captivated by the U.S. Senate candidate's speech and told his future wife that Mr. Edwards was going to be president someday — and he was going to work for him.

She rolled ...

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A yacht involved in a race off the coast of California and Mexico apparently collided at night with a much larger vessel, leaving three crew members dead and one missing, a sailing organization said early Sunday. It was the state's second ocean-racing incident this month.

The ...

Officers did a child pornography knock-and-talk after associating defendant’s IP address with downloading child porn. Once in the house, defendant admitted he might have child porn on the computer, but he refused to consent. While defendant was out of the room, the officer clicked on the computer to exit the word processing document on the screen. That was a search in itself. Then, there was no exigency for taking the computer without a warrant that the police did not create. State v. Sachs, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 571 (April 24, 2012):

We begin our analysis by stating the obvious. When Detective Anderson began clicking on icons on Appellant's computer screen to view different programs that were not openly visible on the computer screen, he was conducting a search. See United States v. Payton, 573 F.3d 859, 863 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that an officer moving a mouse, deactivating a screen saver, and opening a file on a computer was a search requiring a warrant). For these purposes, using a mouse and/or keyboard to shuffle between files that are not plainly visible on an active computer screen is just as much of a search as opening and looking through Appellant's filing cabinets or desk drawers. In fact, "the nature of computers makes such searches so intrusive that affidavits seeking warrants for the search of computers often include a limiting search protocol, and judges issuing warrants may place conditions on the manner and extent of such searches to protect privacy and other important constitutional provisions." Id. at 864. Because "it is important to preserve the option of imposing such conditions when they are deemed warranted by judicial officers authorizing the search of computers," the generally accepted practice of law enforcement officers is "to stop and seek an explicit warrant when they encounter a computer that they have reasons to believe should be searched." Id.

Detective Anderson acknowledged that he was looking through the various programs running in the background on the computer in search of evidence. This was, in any sense of the term, a search.

Accordingly, we must next determine whether the trial court could have properly found that a recognized exception to the warrant requirement was applicable in this case. The State contends that the exigent circumstances justified the detective's actions in accessing the active programs because information in the computer's RAM (random access memory) would disappear when the officer unplugged the computer to seize it. In other words, the State argues that the "exigent circumstance" of the officer wanting to seize the computer, unplug it, and remove it from the apartment before obtaining a warrant justified his search of the active files on the computer.

"The justification for the exigency exception is time related, i.e., there is a need that will not brook the delay incident to obtaining a warrant." Cromer, 186 S.W.3d at 344 (internal quotation omitted). "Exigent circumstances exist if the time needed to obtain a warrant would endanger life, allow the suspect to escape, or risk the destruction of evidence." Id. (internal quotation omitted). "The subjective belief of the officer who conducted the [search] is not determinative. ... [W]e look to the circumstances as they would have appeared to a prudent, cautious, and trained officer." State v. Warren, 304 S.W.3d 796, 801-02 (Mo. App. 2010).

The record in this case simply does not establish any pressing need for the officer to unplug the computer prior to obtaining a warrant. Three officers were present in the apartment and had fully secured the scene. The State failed to prove the existence of exigent circumstances that would preclude an officer from remaining with the computer while a warrant was obtained. The State's argument in this regard is based entirely upon a presumption of inconvenience for the officers and Appellant's roommates. Such circumstances are simply not exigent and most certainly do not establish "a need that will not brook the delay incident to obtaining a warrant." Id. Though Detective Anderson's subjective belief is not the standard for determining exigent circumstances, if Detective Anderson truly believed that valuable evidence might be lost through the unplugging of the computer, he should have waited until a warrant was obtained and then conducted his search of the files active on the computer.

Exigency like bull in the china shop. Think about it: If the state's argument was accepted here, there would be no need for search warrants in child pornography or some other types of cases. Just do a knock-and-talk. If the suspect doesn't consent, search for the stuff anybody because you barged in and alerted him he was a target.

A task force of parole officers made up a list of parolees to be searched in the Syracuse area, and defendant was handcuffed and detained for his parole search, with the officers finding cocaine in his car out front of his house. The search was legal. People v. Johnson, 2012 NY Slip Op 3317, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3336 (4th Dept. April 27, 2012).*

A buy of heroin out of defendant’s truck was probable cause to search it under the automobile exception. United States v. Williams, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8564 (11th Cir. April 27, 2012).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the voluntariness of consent where the search was based on a dog alert. Consent or not was “immaterial.” United States v. Vazquez-Villa, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58690 (D. Kan. April 27, 2012),* prior appeal 423 Fed. Appx. 812 (10th Cir. 2011).