fourthamendment.com Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

A Randolph nuance

September 18, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Courtesy of FourthAmendment.com here is a good case to know about.

Defendant and his wife got into a domestic dispute, and she called the police to tell them about his illegal firearms. They came to the scene and she consented to the search. He was there and vociferously objected. The police searched anyway. The search violated Randolph. Moreover, the defendant’s objections put the police on notice that she probably did not have apparent authority to consent. United States v. Tatman, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19220, 2010 FED App. 0604N (6th Cir. September 13, 2010) (unpublished).

The internets

August 29, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Two items relevant to the internet, privacy, and the Fourth Amendment. Orwell would be . . .

Orin S. Kerr, Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach, 62(4) STANFORD L. REV. 1005 (2010).

This Article proposes a general approach to applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet. It assumes that courts will try to apply the Fourth Amendment to the Internet so that the Fourth Amendment has the same basic function online that it has offline. The Article reaches two major conclusions. First, Fourth Amendment protections online should depend on whether the data is content or non-content information. The contents of communications, like e-mail and remotely stored files, ordinarily should be protected. On the other hand, non-content information, such as IP addresses and e-mail addresses, ordinarily should not be protected. Second, courts should ordinarily require a search warrant if the government seeks to obtain the contents of protected Internet communications. Further, the scope of warrants should be based on individual users rather than individual accounts.

GPS technology

August 7, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I’m aware of one case in the military where the NCIS used GPS tracking (after getting a warrant). Fourthamendment.com recommends:

The D.C. Circuit held on Friday that a warrant is needed for prolonged GPS surveillance, recognizing People v. Weaver from New York and limitingKnotts. [This is a highly important decision. Every criminal and constitutional lawyer needs to read it.] United States v. Maynard, No. 08-3030 (D.C.Cir. August 6, 2010)[.]

Two circuits, relying upon Knotts, have held the use of a GPS tracking device to monitor an individual’s movements in his vehicle over a prolonged period is not a search, United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), but in neither case did the appellant argue that Knotts by its terms does not control whether prolonged surveillance is a search, as Jones argues here. Indeed, in Garcia the appellant explicitly conceded the point. …

We know close enough when we see it

July 5, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

FourthAmendment.com has this post:

Today is the 26th anniversary of United States v. Leon and the good faith exception.

When I remembered that this morning, I had a flash back to the last CLE I did for prosecutors about 1990 where the speaker after me referred to July 5th as "Independence Day from the Fourth Amendment." There was rousing applause from the audience. This was in Memphis, and it is a telling commentary on the thinking of law enforcement and the Fourth Amendment.