Case Law Update: 2011-2014 Cumulative Edition

Holding: Where police told a juvenile that he would get the death penalty and suffer violence in prison unless he confessed to his sister’s murder, his subsequent confession was coerced, and evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that was based on the confession was fruit of the poisonous tree.
Frazier v. Com., 93 Crim. L. Rep. 751 (Ky. 8/29/13):

Holding: Even though Defendant, who was stopped for failing to signal while turning, became belligerent, refused to cooperate by answering questions about passengers, refused a consent to search, and seemed nervous, this did not provide reasonable suspicion to frisk Defendant; refusal of consent to search does not create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; the purpose of a frisk is protective, not investigative.
Com. v. Ousley, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 782 (Ky. 3/21/13):

Holding: Even though trash cans were placed in a driveway near a home where others could access them, the 4^th Amendment still required a warrant to search them because they were within the home’s curtilage, which distinguished case from California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), which held that trash cans outside the home’s curtilage can be searched without a warrant.
Copley v. Com., 2012 WL 976052 (Ky. 2012):

Holding: When a criminal procedure rule is violated in obtaining a search warrant but a defendant’s constitutional rights are not affected, suppression may still be warranted if there is prejudice to the defendant or if there is evidence of deliberate disregard of the rule.
State v. LaPlante, 2011 WL 3298509 (Me. 2011):

Holding: Police had no legal cause to stop Defendant’s vehicle for the purpose of asking whether he had seen another unrelated vehicle speeding.
Jones v. State, 90 Crim. L. Rep. 711 (Md. 2/22/12):

Holding: The “public duty” doctrine does not shield the state from a lawsuit for negligently training its police force on Fourth Amendment law where the plaintiff’s injuries were not attributable to the acts of another citizen but were inflicted by the officers when they improperly entered the plaintiff’s home.
Com. v. Augustine, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 601 (Mass. 2/18/14):

Holding: Massachusetts Constitution requires police obtain a search warrant to obtain mobile phone service’s tower data to be able to track cell phone location.
Com. v. Gentile, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 501 (Mass. 1/14/14):

Holding: 4^th Amendment was violated where Officers entered a home to execute an arrest warrant after an adult who answered the door said that Defendant wasn’t there.
Preventive Medicine Associates v. Com., 93 Crim. L. Rep. 555 (Mass. 7/15/13):

Holding: Post-indictment search warrants must comply with special procedures needed to protect attorney-client privilege and 6^th Amendment right to counsel including judicial supervision of and defense participation in the post-indictment screening process.
Com. v. Rousseau, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 354, 2013 WL 2402513 (Mass. 6/5/13):

Holding: State constitution prohibits warrantless GPS monitoring of both driver/owners of cars and passengers because it violates right to privacy.
Com. v. Nelson, 2011 WL 4057576 (Mass. 2011):

Holding: If Officer seeking search warrant did not make every reasonable effort to appear in front of warrant judge in person, evidence must be suppressed; fax and telephone warrant applications are not favored.
State v. Cruz, 2011 WL 1447590 (Mass. 2011):

Holding: In light of statute decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, where Police smelled odor of marijuana coming from a car, this did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that Defendant (a passenger) was engaged in criminal activity so as to question and search Defendant.
Com. v. Gomes, 2010 WL 4609453 (Mass. 2010):

Holding: An anonymous tip of a man holding a gun in the air did not justify Terry stop of Defendant where there was no corroboration of tip and Defendant made no suspicious movements when approached by Officer.
Com. v. Carr, 2010 WL 4609908 (Mass. 2010):

Holding: Defendant’s consent to search of dorm room was not voluntary where Officer demanded identifies and ordered one person to leave and then blocked the exit; Officer’s statement that “I would like to search the room” was more an order than a request.
Com. v. Lopez, 88 Crim. L. Rep. 351 (Mass. 12/6/10):

Holding: Where police were expecting a man to open hotel room door but woman answered, police should have questioned woman about her authority to consent to search before relying on her consent to go inside.
State v. Hester, 2011 WL 1563683 (Minn. 2011):

Holding: An Indian community police officer was not a “peace officer” where statute defined “peace officer” as a county police officer; thus, he lacked authority to ask Defendant to take an alcohol test in DWI stop.
J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 270 (Neb. 5/17/13):

Holding: The 4^th Amendment’s school-search doctrine does not justify a warrantless search of a student’s vehicle that was parked off campus.
State v. Sprunger, 91 Crim. L. Rep. 18 (Neb. 3/23/12):

Holding: Even though Defendant asked if he could delete some files when police came to Defendant’s house with a warrant to search computers for credit card fraud and Defendant’s attorney later called police about the matter, this did not provide probable cause to obtain a second warrant to search the computer for child pornography.
State v. Nelson, 90 Crim. L. Rep. 326 (Neb. 12/2/11):

Holding: Even though driver was not listed on rental car agreement, he has standing to bring 4^th Amendment challenge to search of car because he had permission from listed person to drive car.
State v. Kincade, 2013 WL 6835028 (Nev. 2013):

Holding: Search warrant’s failure to include a probable cause statement or an attached warrant affidavit rendered the search warrant invalid.
State v. Lantange, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 445 (N.H. 12/24/13):

Holding: (1) Even though Defendant was taking photos of young girls’ “backsides” at a public swimming lake, this did not provide probable cause to arrest Defendant for “disorderly conduct” because although the conduct may have caused discomfort to those who witnessed it, making people uncomfortable is not the same as threatening harm; photographing properly attired children at a public swimming pool would not have warranted a reasonable belief that Defendant posed a threat of imminent harm; and (2) this illegal arrest taints Defendant’s subsequent confession to unrelated child pornography counts and subsequent discovery of child pornography on his home computer.
State v. Schulz, 2012 WL 4672023 (N.H. 2012):

Holding: Even though police had a warrant to search home for “firearms,” where they found only a legal BB gun, they were required to stop their search since the warrant contained no other information authorizing continuing to search the home.
State v. Newcomb, 2011 WL 1399466 (N.H. 2011):

Holding: Officer’s warrantless inventory search of truck was invalid where search did not follow standardized police department procedures.
State v. Brown, 2014 WL 301355 (N.J. 2014):

Holding: Even though confidential informant told Officer that Defendant’s house was “abandoned” and house was in a deteriorated condition, Officer’s belief that he could search house without a warrant on grounds that it was “abandoned” property was unreasonable where the house’s doors were locked with padlocks and Defendant kept house locked when he was not there.
State v. Earls, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 552 (N.J. 7/18/13):

Holding: New Jersey Constitution requires police to obtain search warrants before electronically tracking the location of suspects using cell phones.
State v. K.W., 2013 WL 3481698 (N.J. 2013):

Holding: Wiretap Act demands strict compliance, and where police failed to get approval of prosecutor before doing a consensual wiretap, evidence obtained from wiretap must be suppressed.
State v. Vargas, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 784, 2013 WL 1104072 (N.J. 3/18/13):

Holding: Even though landlord called 911 because tenant had not been seen for several weeks and their mail was piling up, police were not justified under “community care-taking doctrine” to enter home without warrant; the community care-taking doctrine requires some form of emergency.
State v. Shaw, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 329 (N.J. 12/13/12):

Holding: Officers’ discovery of an arrest warrant for Defendant whom they unconstitutionally stopped did not purge the 4^th Amendment violation for drugs found during the stop.
State v. Edmonds, 2012 WL 3032259 (N.J. 2012):

Holding: Even though a 911 call about a domestic disturbance at a residence was received from a pay phone, the search of the residence without a warrant was not justified under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement because there was no corroboration of a domestic disturbance and police found no weapons on Defendant at the residence after searching him.
State v. Handy, 89 Crim. L. Rep. 153, 2011 WL 1544500 (N.J. 4/26/11):

Holding: Where (1) police stopped Defendant for riding his bicycle on sidewalk, (2) dispatcher reported that there was a warrant for his arrest, and (3) police arrested and searched Defendant and found drugs, drugs must be suppressed because arrest was objectively unreasonable under 4^th Amendment where dispatcher should have known that person to be arrested had a different middle initial, spelling of name, and date of birth than Defendant; Herring v. U.S., 555 U.S. 135 (2009) does not apply because the police error here was not attenuated from the arrest and, thus, suppression would have greater deterrent value.
State v. Davis, 2014 WL 130464 (N.M. App. 2014):

Holding: Under New Mexico Constitution, an aerial search of Defendant’s greenhouse by police in a helicopter required a search warrant before conducting the surveillance.
State v. Leyva, 88 Crim. L. Rep 636 (N.M. 2/17/11):
Holding: Under New Mexico constitution, police conducting a traffic stop can only ask questions reasonably related to the stop or otherwise supported by reasonable suspicion, and cannot engage in “fishing expeditions” asking about other matters not related to the stop.
People v. Kevin W., 94 Crim. L. Rep. 307, 2013 WL 6096129 (N.Y. 11/21/13):

Holding: Once a trial court has ruled on a suppression motion, the State cannot “reopen” the hearing to present witnesses it chose not to present at the original hearing.
People v. Baker, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 549 (N.Y. 2/7/13):

Holding: Even though Defendant swore at Officer who was talking to his girlfriend, this did not constitute offense of “disorderly conduct” since there was no indication that this disrupted the public peace, so there was no probable cause to arrest Defendant and drugs found as a result of arrest had to be suppressed.
People v. Garcia, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 352 (N.Y. 12/18/12):

Holding: NY law prohibits police from asking motorists if they have a weapon during routine traffic stops unless the police have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
People v. Gavazzi, 2012 WL 5906686 (N.Y. 2012):

Holding: A warrant to search for child pornography issued by a village justice did not sufficiently comply with the statutory requirement that a warrant clearly identify the issuing court and signature of a judge.
People v. Brannon, 2011 WL 1671883 (N.Y. 2011):

Holding: Even though Officer saw part of knife protruding from Defendant’s pocket, this did not provide reasonable suspicion to believe this was an illegal gravity knife, where office did not testify he thought knife was illegal and thought it was a pocketknife.
State v. Pasour, 2012 WL 4867700 (N.C. App. 2012):

Holding: Even though Defendant failed to answer knock on front and side door to house, Officers lacked reasonable suspicion or justification to enter backyard of Defendant’s house (where marijuana was found) since this was curtilage of house where Defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy.
State v. Hart, 2014 WL 116774 (N.D. 2014):

Holding: Where police arrested Defendant on a misdemeanor warrant while Defendant was in his garage, there was no reasonable suspicion for police to do a protective sweep of the entire house, even though Defendant had previously been at another location where drugs or weapons were found; police could have simply arrested Defendant in the garage and left.


State v. Gagnon, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 53 (N.D. 9/25/12):

Holding: Where home’s occupants refused to consent to search of the home, police were not justified in subsequently walking through the home to secure the premises while seeking a search warrant, because mere suspicion that evidence may be destroyed does not create exigent circumstances to search without a warrant.
State v. Gardner, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 309, 2012 WL 6553115 (Ohio 12/6/12):

Holding: Even though a warrant for Defendant was discovered after he was stopped, it cannot justify an unlawful stop and seizure of Defendant where the stopping Officer had no knowledge of the warrant.
State v. Miskell, 2012 WL 1437301 (Or. 2012):

Holding: Police were required to obtain a court order before recording a hotel room conversation between an informant and the defendants.
State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 2011 WL 4599663 (Or. 2011):

Holding: Automobile exception does not permit a warrantless search of a vehicle that is parked, immobile, and unoccupied at the time the police encounter it in connection to a crime.
State v. Parker, 2011 WL 1565356 (Or. 2011):
Holding: Officer unreasonably “seized” passenger before passenger gave consent to search his person where Officer asked passenger if there were any warrants for his arrest, wrote down his name and date of birth, and went to police car to run a records check on passenger; a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.
State v. Guggenmos, 89 Crim. L. Rep. 256 (Or. 5/5/11):

Holding: Even though police saw two men run out of an apparent drug house and someone at the house consented to a search, this did not give them authority under 4^th Amendment to conduct a protective sweep of the house.
Com. v. Johnson, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 607 (Pa. 2/18/14):
Holding: The good-faith exception to exclusionary rule does not apply to searches conducted pursuant to an invalid arrest warrant; applying the exclusionary rule to such situations promotes privacy interests because it gives the State an incentive to keep its arrest warrant database current and purge no longer valid arrest warrants; here, Defendant was arrested and searched (resulting in drugs being found) pursuant to an invalid arrest warrant; the warrant was invalid because it had previously been served on Defendant 9 days earlier, and therefore, had been fulfilled and should not have been served again.
Com. v. Lagenella, 2013 WL 6823057 (Pa. 2013):

Holding: Even though Defendant’s car was parked two feet from curb, where it posed no safety concern, Officer was not authorized to tow the car upon learning the Defendant’s license had been suspended; thus, Officer’s warrantless inventory search of car was unconstitutional.
In re L.J., 94 Crim. L. Rep. 177 (Pa. 10/30/13):

Holding: Appellate courts reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress should not consider any evidence other than that adduced at the suppression hearing; this will protect defendants’ due process concerns where they may be unable to cross-examine certain witnesses at trial about suppression matters, or could be forced to testify at trial about suppression matters.
Com. v. Jones, 2013 WL 2360949 (Pa. 2013):

Holding: The “four corners rule,” which says that a trial court can only consider information contained in a search warrant affidavit in determining if probable cause existed to issue the warrant, does not apply to a defendant’s suppression motion alleging that the statements in the affidavit are untrue or alleging omitted facts; thus, court could consider extrinsic evidence whether police had illegally entered the curtilage of Defendant’s home to obtain his trash, examination of which led to probable cause to issue the warrant.
Com. v. Wilson, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 321 (Pa. 5/28/13):

Holding: Trial court had no authority to order Defendant to submit to suspicionless searches as a condition of probation because this violated state statute that allowed probation officers to conduct searches of property only is there is reasonable suspicion of the presence of contraband.
Com. v. Marconi, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 496, 2013 WL 309896 (Pa. 1/22/13):

Holding: Sheriffs’ offices do not have authority to establish vehicle checkpoints under Penn. law that authorizes vehicle checkpoints because they do not qualify as “police officers” under the law.
Com. v. Wallace, 2012 WL 1434885 (Pa. 2012):

Holding: An affidavit of probable cause failed to provide a magistrate with a substantial basis to find probable cause to conclude that a controlled buy of drugs at the defendant’s home would occur, which was the triggering condition for execution of the anticipatory search warrant.
Com. v. Grahame, 88 Crim. L. Rep. 254 (Pa. 11/17/10):

Holding: Even though drugs were being sold out of a house, where Officer’s obtained consent to enter house, they did not have reasonable suspicion to make a warrantless search of Defendant’s purse while Defendant was sitting on a couch next to it because there was not reasonable suspicion under Terry to believe Officer’s safety was in danger from the purse; court rejects presumption that “drugs and guns go hand in hand.”
McHam v. State, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 564 (S.C. 7/17/13):

Holding: Where police open a door of a car during a traffic stop, this generally constitutes a search under the 4^th Amendment.


State v. Liverman, 2012 WL 2018015 (S.C. 2012):

Holding: Even though eyewitness knew Defendant well, due process required trial court to conduct a Neil v. Biggers, 490 U.S. 188 (1972), hearing to determine reliability of eyewitness’ out-of-court identification of Defendant to determine if it was impermissibly suggestive.
State v. Amrick, 93 Crim. L. Rep. 211 (S.D. 5/8/13):

Holding: Where Officer mistakenly stopped a car (here mistakenly believing it did not have a license plate), Officer may approach driver and explain mistake but cannot ask for identification, registration or proof of insurance.
State v. Rademaker, 2012 WL 1356687 (S.D. 2012):

Holding: Avoidance of a highway sobriety checkpoint alone is insufficient to form a basis for reasonable suspicion to support a traffic stop.

State v. Zahn, 2012 WL 862707 (S.D. 2012):

Holding: Law enforcement’s attachment of a global positioning system to the defendant’s vehicle constituted a search.
State v. Morales, 2012 WL 243576 (Wash. 2012):

Holding: State failed to prove that vehicular assault defendant, who was subject to a mandatory blood test, was actually read the required warning of his statutory right to have an additional test administered by a qualified person of his choosing, rendering the results of the test inadmissible.
State v. Moats, 2013 WL 1181967 (Tenn. 2013):

Holding: Where Officer activated blue lights behind a parked car in a parking lot even though there was no indication that the person in the car needed assistance, this was a “seizure” of the person that implicated constitutional protections and was not a permissible exercise of Officer’s community care-taking functions.
State v. Gurule, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 90 (Utah 10/1/13):

Holding: Even though Officers had a tip that Defendant had exchanged cash for something in baggies and was previously associated with drugs, where Officers followed Defendant’s car until it swerved and then stopped Defendant, they were justified in conducting a protective frisk of him but when that failed to find anything, Officers “improperly extended” their traffic stop of Defendant under 4^th Amendment when they undertook a prolonged investigation and search.
State v. Button, 2013 WL 5495300 (Vt. 2013):

Holding: Even though Defendant’s car was stopped on shoulder of road with its engine running, where it was not posing any danger to oncoming traffic and Defendant did not appear in distress, the community caretaking exception did not justify warrantless seizure and search of car.
In re Appeal of Application for Search Warrant, 92 Crim. L. Rep. 249 (Vt. 12/14/12):

Holding: 4^th Amendment authorizes magistrate to separate prosecutor and investigating agents from search of a computer by requiring search be done by a third party and then any evidence not related to the offense for which there is probable cause to be kept from the prosecutor and investigators.
State v. Hinton and State v. Roden, 94 Crim. L. Rep. 665, 2014 WL 766680 and 2014 WL 766681 (Wash. 2/27/14):

Holding: Washington Constitution requires a warrant to search Defendants’ text messages, even those sent to another phone and obtained from the other phone; here, police had obtained a phone from an arrestee and used messages which had been received on the phone from Defendants to convict them; further, police pretended to be the arrestee and sent texts to Defendants and received texts in return; “Just as subjecting a letter to potential interception while in transit does not extinguish a sender’s privacy interest in its contents, neither does subjecting a text communication to the possibility of exposure on someone else’s phone.”
State v. Snapp, 2012 WL 1134130 (Wash. 2012)

Holding: Warrantless vehicle searches incident to arrest of recent occupants are not permitted under the State Constitution’s prohibition against disturbance of private affairs or invasion of home without authority of law; Wash. Const. provides greater protection than Arizona v. Gant and requires an officer to obtain a warrant to search a car.
State v. Schultz, 88 Crim. L. Rep. 545 (Wash. 1/13/11):