drugcrimedefender

GPS Tracking on the Uptick

I have noticed that the police are increasingly using GPS tracking devices to obtain evidence of drug activity.  The typical pattern is for the police to draft an affidavit describing the suspected drug activity "based on my training and experience" and seek permission to place a secret GPS transmitter on the vehicle-even including court permission to hardwire the device to the vehicle's power source.  In the past year it seems that GPS has become almostthe norm in my drug cases.  The technology is described here and here.

Cracked windshield equals probable cause to stop

From the Manchester Union Leader

Three Manchester residents were arrested yesterday on drug charges after a state trooper pulled over their car for a cracked windshield.

Trooper Derek Holston stopped the car at 3:45 p.m. on Interstate 93.

The car was searched and, police said, marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia was found inside it.

Arrested were Cristy L. Demers, 29, of 329 Harvard St., charged with possession and transportation of a controlled drug and possession of drug paraphernalia; Bethany Rose Sullivan, 21, of Cedar Street, and Jeffrey Laroche, 18, of 119 Ash St., both charged with possession of a controlled drug and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Search warrant fails on probable cause, and it was so deficient that the good faith exception did not apply

Via Fourth Amendment.com:

Officers had information from a confidential informant that defendant was manufacturing illegal DVDs in his attic. The information about the premises was the same that could be seen by any passerby. The officers entered without a warrant and went to the attic to conduct a protective sweep. The court found that there was no exigency for the entry and no cause for a protective sweep. On the search warrant that had been issued, the court finds that there was no probable cause for the search warrant--it was nothing more than conclusions. The lack of probable cause was so obvious that the good faith exception did not apply. United States v. Pinder, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40061 (E.D. Va. June 1, 2007):

Cell Phone Records Suppressed

Via Fourth Amendment.com

The defendant was arrested on a controlled delivery of a package containing meth to his house. His cellphone was seized at the time of his arrest, but its call directory was not accessed for nearly three hours. The search of the cellphone could not be justified under the search incident doctrine. United States v. Lasalle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34233 (D. Haw. May 9, 2007).

Patdown for Weapons Consent Does Not Allow Generalized Search for Non-Weapon Contraband

Via Fourth Amendment:

Defendant consented only to a patdown for weapons, and the patdown revealed a small bulge in his pocket which was obviously not a weapon, so the plain feel exception did not apply. State v. Lee, 2007 Kan. LEXIS 242 (April 27, 2007)

Passenger Standing Case Continues to Wend

Via Crime and Consequences:

The transcript of oral argument in Brendlin v. California is now available. The question presented is whether a traffic stop of a vehicle amounts to a seizure of the passenger so that he has standing to challenge the legality of the stop. During petitioner's argument, it seemed that the case might be decided on a Wong Sun question of whether the evidence was so far removed from the alleged illegality that it would not be suppressed in any event. However, during the state's argument, the justices appeared to back off from that and return to the question presented. Orin Kerr has some first-hand observations at the Volokh Conspiracy.

"I don't want you to but you're going to search anyway" is not voluntary consent

Via Fourth Amendment:

Defendant was stopped and was alleged to have consented to a search. The officer who alleged received the consent was sitting in the courtroom at the suppression hearing and was not called by the government. The court finds that the consent was not validly given. There was, however, reasonable suspicion, and then a dog alerted and that gave probable cause. United States v. Dyson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30030 (S.D. Ohio April 24, 2007):

ID Check Makes Extended Stop Unreasonable

Via Fourth Amendment:

Defendant was a passenger in a car that was stopped, and the officer did a background check on the passenger, and that impermissibly extended the stop. People v. Andrews, 2007 Ill. App. LEXIS 381 (3d Dist. April 19, 2007):

A Plethora of Unique Legal Issues on the High Seas

Via Appellate Law and Practice

First Circuit

US v. Bravo, Nos. 05-1144, 05-1145, 05-1146, 05-1147.  This is a pretty large drug trafficking conviction.  The defendants were caught on a boat with over 1000 kilograms of marijuana.  The coast guard had seen them off 180 miles from the Dominican Republica “dead in the water” in a said boat that reeked of marijuana.   The Columbians government could neither confirm nor refute that they were a Columbian vessel.  So, the government argues that since the vessel was effectively stateless, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA"), 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c) lets the US exercise jurisdiction over it, and the First finds that no jurisdictional nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the US is required.

Read the whole story here.

First Circuit

US v. Bravo, Nos. 05-1144, 05-1145, 05-1146, 05-1147.  This is a pretty large drug trafficking conviction.  The defendants were caught on a boat with over 1000 kilograms of marijuana.  The coast guard had seen them off 180 miles from the Dominican Republica “dead in the water” in a said boat that reeked of marijuana.   The Columbians government could neither confirm nor refute that they were a Columbian vessel.  So, the government argues that since the vessel was effectively stateless, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA"), 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c) lets the US exercise jurisdiction over it, and the First finds that no jurisdictional nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the US is required.

Read the whole story here.