VoteKansas.org

Officers somehow ended up at defendant's house based on an investigation that his IP address had been used for credit card fraud. They came to do a knock-and-talk for his computers and he refused to consent to a search. They came back with a search warrant, and he requested to delete files from one of the computers when one made an off-hand remark about child pornography, which they denied. Then they sought a second search warrant for child pornography based on the request to delete files. That was not an additional factor in probable cause, and the trial court was correct in suppressing the search and in finding no good faith exception. State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531, 2012 Neb. LEXIS 40 (March 23, 2012):

The Fourth Amendment contains a particularity requirement, stating that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Founding Fathers’ abhorrence of the English King’s use of general warrants—which allowed royal officials to engage in general exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings —was the impetus for the adoption of the Fourth Amendment.10 Simply put, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “fishing expeditions.”

...

[12] To allow a search based only on the fact that Sprunger wanted to hide something would sanction the type of general exploratory rummaging the Founders wished to prohibit. As we have stated before, “‘[a] general search for evidence of any crime,’” such as the one that would be issued based solely on this fact, is unconstitutional.

It is true that the fact Sprunger asked to delete some files might have raised a suspicion. But this suspicion did not amount to a fair probability that child pornography would be found on his computers. Based solely on this fact, the deputies would have no idea what would be found. Their search would have amounted to a rummaging through a treasure trove of information. “‘[T]he modern development of the personal computer and its ability to store and intermingle a huge array of one’s personal papers in a single place increases law enforcement’s ability to conduct a wide-ranging search into a person’s private affairs.’” It thus makes the particularity and probable cause requirements all the more important. To sanction a search based solely on Sprunger’s request to delete some unknown files would trivialize the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

. . .

Moreover, not only would a reasonable officer know that a general search warrant was illegal, a reasonable officer would also know that telling a person that he had “nothing to worry about” if he had no child pornography on his computer would lead that person to believe he was being investigated for child pornography. T The deputy had effectively planted the idea in Sprunger’s head. Given this, we do not see how the deputies could have objectively relied on the warrant. The deputies knew—or certainly should have known—that the only fact showing any connection to child pornography was of their own making.

While the application for the search warrant failed to show nexus to defendant’s car, the arrest warrant application presented to the magistrate just five minutes earlier did. Therefore, it was apparent the search warrant application omission was a mere oversight, and the magistrate apparently considered both in issuing the warrant, and this was not improper. The good faith exception would apply in any event. State v. Cunningham, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 370 (La. App. 4th Cir. March 21, 2012):

In sum, we find that Detective Matthews' failure to include information in the affidavit for the search warrant linking the residence to the Mustang used in the shooting was an apparent oversight. Nonetheless, the magistrate was aware of this link because it was contained in the affidavit for Williams' arrest warrant, which the magistrate read and signed mere minutes before reading the affidavit for the search warrant for the residence. Detective Matthews and the other officers were not unreasonable in relying on the validity of the search warrant for the residence. Nor is there evidence of any police misconduct on Detective Matthews' part. Given these circumstances coupled with the fact that the magistrate was in possession of the information linking the residence to the Mustang before he signed the search warrant for the residence, none of the exceptions to the good faith doctrine applies to this case. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the residence. Accordingly, the Relator's writ application is denied.

One defendant’s cell phone was could be seized and searched under his parole search condition, and the other defendants had no standing in his cell phone. United States v. Delvalle, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38547 (C.D. Cal. March 20, 2012).*

There was no reasonable suspicion to extend the stop in this case, and that unlawful detention led to an invalid consent. State v. Wendler, 2012 Kan. App. LEXIS 24 (March 23, 2012)*:

We conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, the duration of the traffic stop was measurably extended after the purpose of the traffic stop—to investigate Wendler's commission of a traffic violation—was concluded. Moreover, during the investigation into the traffic violation, the officer did not gain reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity necessary to lawfully extend the scope and duration of the detention. Finally, we conclude the unlawful detention of Wendler infected or tainted his consent to answer questions and to search the RV. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the district court suppressing the marijuana seized from the RV and the dismissal of charges against Wendler.

PHILADELPHIA — A landmark sex-abuse trial opening Monday in Philadelphia may unveil the operations of a Roman Catholic archdiocese and detail how children's complaints were buried for decades in secret archives next to a soaring cathedral as the priests they named went unpunished.

Monsignor William Lynn is the first ...

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — As Talma Isabell coped with the crushing heartache of losing her daughter and five grandchildren in a house fire that killed nine people in all, several dozen people surrounded the woman and her family at church Sunday with their arms raised and their heads bowed in ...

NEW YORK

Training on Everest climb helps man wins memory contest

NEW YORK | A Florida man who trained for a national memory competition by memorizing a randomly shuffled deck of cards as he climbed Mount Everest won the mental bout Saturday and broke a U.S. record.

Nelson Dellis, 28, ...

Government nonsense is blooming in Michigan:

Michigan DNR Going Hog Wild
By Pete Kennedy, Esq. | March 15, 2012

In a brazen power grab threatening the livelihood of hundreds of small farmers, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is using the state Invasive Species Act to expand its jurisdiction beyond hunting and fishing to farming operations. On April 1, 2012 an Invasive Species Order (ISO) that DNR issued in December 2010 prohibiting the possession of a number of different types breeds of swine will go into effect.

The order allows DNR to seize and destroy heritage breeds of pigs that farmers are raising; and DNR will not compensate farmers whose pigs are destroyed. In the logic of the department, “Indemnification in [Michigan] statute is for livestock and invasive species are not livestock, and are therefore, not eligible for indemnification.”
-Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

Aye, it’s crazy, unscientific and a blatant trampling on the Constitutional rights. But, it’s easy to understand. It is all about greed and cutting out the competition. What is particularly, almost, amusing is that Big Ag feels threatened enough to have pushed for this.