12 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. FL declines to to apply Davis GFE where cell phone search issue was being actively litigated all over

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallJuly 5, 2017

    The rule on searches in questionable areas of law is simple and unequivocal: Get a warrant. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971) (“[T]he most basic constitutional rule in this area is that ‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.'” (emphasis added)); see also Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2493, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014) (“Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirement is ‘an important working part of our machinery of government,’ not merely ‘an inconvenience to be somehow “weighed” against the claims of police efficiency.'”

  2. CA6: “Pill mill” employee was a snitch who let in undercover DEA agent as a patient; this was consent to enter and assumption of risk

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallNovember 5, 2017

    Ordinary burglars or nosy roommates cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, no matter how invasive they become. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971); United States v. Bowers, 594 F.3d 522, 525-26 (6th Cir. 2010). The private-search doctrine was imposed to prevent the police from covertly deputizing private citizens to break the law, thereby circumventing the state-action requirement and the Fourth Amendment’s strictures.

  3. S.D.Fla.: Co. that rented vehicles to another for rental to public had standing to sue over seizure

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallMarch 18, 2017

    However, the Supreme Court has stated that “plain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 468, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564. (1971). Construing the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, it does not appear that there were any exigencies that would have justified a warrantless seizure, or that any recognized exception to the warrant requirement applied.

  4. E.D.N.C.: Post-release supervision home search before dawn wasn’t reasonable

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallDecember 22, 2016

    A search conducted at night is more intrusive than a search conducted during the day. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 477, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971) (describing midnight entry into a dwelling as an “extremely serious intrusion”). The Supreme Court has found it “difficult to imagine a more severe invasion of privacy than the nighttime intrusion into a private home.”

  5. NJ rejects the state’s prior subjective inadvertence requirement of the plain view doctrine

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallNovember 18, 2016

    (pp. 15-16)2. The United States Supreme Court established the factual predicates necessary to satisfy the plain-view exception in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-72, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2037-41, 29 L. Ed. 2d 695, 582-87 (1984). … 3.

  6. N.D.Ga.: Consent still voluntary despite argument it’s not logical that somebody holding would consent; argument def believed nothing would be found supports voluntariness

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallApril 29, 2016

    No doubt there are always forces inducing a person to cooperate with the police, including “the simple but often powerful convention of openness and honesty, the fear that secretive behavior will intensify suspicion, and uncertainty as to what course is most likely to be helpful ….” See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487-88, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971). Here, there may have been multiple incentives motivating Collins to be cooperative.

  7. CA6: Police cannot summarily kill dogs in houses they search

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallOctober 16, 2018

    In cases involving contraband, the Supreme Court has continued to ask whether a seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment: A warrantless seizure of contraband is not reasonable if it was not “immediately apparent” to an officer that the item was contraband. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990); see also Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326-28 (1987); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587 (1980); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971).Just like it applied to the stolen stereo equipment in Hicks, the Fourth Amendment applies to the unlicensed dogs here.

  8. M.D.La.: Leaving one’s garage door open is not a waiver of REP or standing

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJuly 23, 2018

    Id. (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474-475 (1971)). Therefore, Defendant has standing to challenge the search.

  9. SCOTUS to address scope of 4th Amendment’s automobile exception

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderOctober 2, 2017

    However, SCOTUS has not applied that rule on private, residential property. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474-75, 479-80, 482 (1971) (majority opinion); 458-64 (plurality opinion); California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985). The 5th Circuit, 10th Circuit, Georgia and Illinois require a warrant for the search of an automobile parked at a residence.

  10. Merit Decision: Court Disapproves Arrest Warrants Issued Without A Probable Cause Determination, But Denies Exclusion of Evidence as Remedy. State v. Hoffman

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanNovember 6, 2014

    ( A barebones complaint that only cites the statutory elements of the offense satisfies the Fourth Amendment.)(overruled)Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that probable cause must be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate rather than by an official of the executive branch whose duty is to enforce the law, to investigate, and to prosecute.)United States v. United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Michigan, S. Div., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (The requirement that probable cause must be determined by a neutral and detached magistrate reflects “our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government.”)