Friday, October 07, 2016

Search And Seizure Update

Our office has launched the 2016 update of Developments in Federal Search and Seizure Law on our external site, linked here. For over 25 years, we have been publishing this outline in a point-counterpoint format on Fourth Amendment law to provide defense attorneys a running start on research and a source for creative thought on how to win suppression motions. This update expands on technological developments in surveillance while keeping current on more conventional police investigative conduct. The outline collects basic cases on areas of Fourth Amendment law and gleans precedent from the mass of case law to emphasize defense wins.

The outline has grown over the years to 62 pages, so we need to be able to easily access what we are looking for when an issue arises. This is how I use it and hope it is useful to others.

• First, you go to the link above on the Oregon Federal Public Defender site where the outline is kept under Attorney Resources as Search and Seizure 2016.

• Then, you can then click on it and save it as a favorite.

• Then, there are a couple of ways in addition to the Table of Contents to navigate the outline, the easiest of which is to use Control F for a search word (reasonable suspicion, computer, knock and announce) or case name (Schneckloth, Whren, Payton) to arrive in the neighborhood where such issues are discussed.

• You can also use Bookmarks to click into the sections described in the Table of Contents by right clicking in the document, click on Show Navigation Pane Buttons, then click Bookmarks.

In the competition for our favorite new cases from the Ninth Circuit, we have five finalists.

• In United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2016), Judge Fletcher writes on a case that could double as a script for an episode of Sons of Anarchy, providing analysis of curtilage, knock-and-talk after the Supreme Court’s Jardines decision, exigent circumstances, protective sweeps, and the metaphysical fine points of inevitable discovery and independent source doctrine.

• In United States v. Evans, 786 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2015), Judge Berzon applies the Supreme Court’s Rodriguez decision on a traffic stop prolonged for a dog sniff;

• In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016), Judge Berzon discusses the use of overbroad grand jury subpoenas as the equivalent of general warrants and our privacy interests in electronic communications;

• In United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016), 815 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016), Judge Fletcher discusses a probationer’s legitimate expectations of privacy in the contents of a smart phone after the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley;

• In Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, 815 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2016), Judge Gould provides updates applying Dunn on curtilage, Steagald on warrantless entry to arrest a third party fugitive, and Warden on hot pursuit.

Vote early, vote often!

Steve Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon


Post a Comment

<< Home