Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

In this archive episode, Dennis talks about recent case law regarding searching cars for documentation for proof of ownership. Recorded on 03/29/2018. State of NJ v. Terry 2018 - Searching Cars for Documents Defendant Keith Terry caused a patrol car to activate its lights and siren after the rental truck he was driving ran a stop sign. Defendant triggered a dangerous chase as he eluded the police, weaving through traffic before pulling into a gas station. The police removed defendant from the truck at gunpoint, and defendant did not respond to an officer's repeated requests to show the truck's registration or proof of ownership. In light of defendant's silence and his failure to indicate he was in lawful possession of the truck, a police officer conducted a limited search of the glove compartment for the truck's ownership papers and, in the process, observed a handgun in plain view on the vehicle's floor. Thereafter, defendant was charged with and found guilty by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm and hollow-point bullets. Although the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the handgun, the Appellate Division reversed and vacated defendant's conviction. It held that the search was unreasonable because the police did not give defendant the opportunity to produce the truck's registration. We conclude that the Appellate Division erred in substituting its factfindings for those of the trial court. Sufficient credible evidence supported the trial court's determination that defendant was given an adequate opportunity to present the vehicle's registration before the search commenced. We reaffirm our decision in Keaton—and in previous cases—that, when a driver is unwilling or unable to present proof of a vehicle's ownership, a police officer may conduct a limited search for the registration papers in the areas where they are likely kept in the vehicle. We add this limiting principle. When a police officer can readily determine that the driver or passenger is the lawful possessor of the vehicle—despite an inability to produce the registration—a warrantless search for proof of ownership will not be justified. The limited registration search exception to the warrant requirement has long been embedded in our jurisprudence and has been adopted by many other courts. We reject the constitutional challenge to the limited registration search exception, as applied here, and hold that the search of defendant's glove box was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of our State Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate defendant's conviction. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-supreme-court%2F1891610.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3ADe5lOR3XQEwPB-zxwuHRM5T4hxukZx6LCRtdF3CtLRn8Ke6Ml9bGZWs&h=AT3IVk1wdn3EHqqu5F_DAa3GXO3Y6VETGILkZPOFXpJUYClPIA6eazfar2K8Vt6kdjkxRN8Zu2zaho9pwTx0_oa6fAMm3hYmJb-H0zCBzOP21XCifalHG8sraCQrzYrttH0T5vDFRmoHVC7YFg&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1891610.html) Also see State of NJ v Julian Hamlett

Much has been said about police officers and departments who violate civil rights or enforce the law in discriminatory ways. But not as much attention has been paid to the ways in which the U.S. Supreme Court has enabled police excesses and insulated police from civil or criminal responsibility, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the new book Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Chemerinsky discusses why the Supreme Court did not address police powers during the first century of its existence; why the Warren Court was an aberration when it came to curtailing police powers; and what his experience was like when he investigated the Los Angeles Police Department's notorious Rampart Division in 2000. While Chemerinsky is not in favor of abolishing police, he also suggests several pathways for the American people to reform policing systems and buttress Fourth Amendment protections without relying on the Supreme Court to hold police accountable. He also shares how he was able to finish his book on an accelerated deadline while juggling his work as an ABA Journal columnist and a dean of a law school during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains some case laws and tactics to apply with passengers in vehicles. Recorded on 03/24/2018. State of NJ v. Brian L Smith 1994 https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1994/a-28-93-opn.html?fbclid=IwAR3SIJrMktFLomB-0wZbeMlSfOKjQ7dGkagvy-QG0Vc1Vg92kn4WPtiRmDM (https://law.justia.com/.../supreme.../1994/a-28-93-opn.html) HELD: The State Trooper's order to the passenger, Geraldine Muhammad, to step out of the car stopped for a routine traffic violation, and the officer's pat-down of that passenger were reasonable, and hence, permissible under the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress the cocaine and drug paraphernalia found incident to arrest. 1. In determining whether Trooper Gacina's order to the passenger, Muhammad, to get out of the car was reasonable, the Court is guided by the seminal case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms. In Mimms, the U.S. Supreme Court balanced the driver's interest in privacy against the State's interest in protecting its police officers. The Court concluded that the State's interest in the safety of its officers far outweighed the driver's interest in not being made routinely to step out of a car after it has been stopped for a traffic violation. The Court held that the order to the driver to step out of the vehicle was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. (pp. 8-10) 2. Mimms, as applied to drivers, satisfies the New Jersey Constitution. Here, the Court decides whether and under what conditions Mimms should be extended to passengers. The touchstone of the Court's analysis is the reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. (pp. 10-16) 3. Although the State's interest in safety remains the same whether the driver or the passenger is involved, requiring a passenger to step from the vehicle in the course of a routine traffic stop represents a greater intrusion on the passenger's liberty than it does on a driver's liberty. In applying the Mimms balancing test to passengers, the Court concludes that the Mimms per se rule should not be applied automatically to passengers. There will be instances, however, in which police officers, with less than a reasonable suspicion that a passenger is engaged in criminal activity or is armed or dangerous, may reasonably order a passenger to step out of the car. (pp. 16-20) 4. To support an order to a passenger to step out of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation, the officer must point to some fact or facts in the totality of the circumstances that would create in a police officer a heightened awareness of danger that would warrant an objectively reasonable officer in securing the scene in a more effective manner by ordering the passenger to step out of the car. To justify a pat-down of an occupant who has stepped out of a vehicle, the officer must find specific articulable facts to demonstrate that a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety or that of others was in danger. (pp. 20-22) 5. In this case, Trooper Gacina's order was objectively reasonable. The unusual movements of the passengers in the car, the early morning hour, and a largely deserted Turnpike are facts that warrant proceeding with extra caution in handling the occupants of the vehicle. Moreover, the pat-down of Muhammad was valid. The premature announcement of Officer's Gacina's intent to perform a pat-down does not debilitate the officer so that he will not later be able to perform a pat-down should sufficient facts come to light. Muhammad's actions after she stepped from the vehicle, when considered in the totality of the circumstances, were sufficient to support a reasonable, articulable suspicion that she was armed and dangerous. (pp. 22-26) Also see State v...

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses some case laws and offers tips on getting proof of vehicle ownership in the case of being unable to identify the driver. Recorded on 03/23/2018. State V. Ornette Terry and searching cars in NJ for vehicle documents decided 03/14/18 (NJ Supreme Court). HELD: Sufficient credible evidence supported the trial court's determination that the defendant was given an adequate opportunity to present the vehicle's registration before the search commenced. When a driver is unwilling or unable to present proof of a vehicle's ownership, a police officer may conduct a limited search for the registration papers in the areas where they are likely kept in the vehicle. When a police officer can readily determine that the driver or passenger is the lawful possessor of the vehicle—despite an inability to produce the registration—a warrantless search for proof of ownership will not be justified. Argued October 11, 2017 -- Decided March 14, 2018 -- Corrected March 16, 2018 ALBIN, J., writing for the Court. The Court considers whether an officer acted reasonably, in accordance with New Jersey precedents permitting a limited registration search without a warrant and the dictates of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the State Constitution, when he searched defendant's glove box. Union Township Police Officer Devlin observed defendant's GMC truck run a stop sign and almost strike his patrol car. Officer Devlin activated the overhead lights and siren. Defendant did not pull to the side of the road. Instead, without signaling, he zigzagged back and forth from the right to the left lane in traffic. Officer Devlin relayed the truck's license plate number to a dispatcher, who notified him that the vehicle was a Hertz rental, which had not been reported stolen. After a half-mile, defendant turned into a gas station where he came to a stop. Officer Devlin parked his patrol car behind defendant's truck while a backup police officer in a marked unit pulled in front of the truck, effectively blocking it in. With the other officer beside him and their guns trained on defendant, Officer Devlin repeatedly ordered defendant to show his hands, but defendant made no response. Twenty to thirty seconds later, Officer Devlin opened the driver's door and commanded that he step out of the vehicle. Defendant did so, leaned against the truck, put his hands in his pockets, and asked why the officers had pulled him over. Although Officer Devlin repeatedly instructed defendant to show his hands, he was slow to comply. The two officers quickly patted defendant down, assuring themselves he was not armed with a weapon. When Officer Devlin asked defendant for identification, defendant reached into his pocket and presented his license. Officer Devlin next requested that defendant produce the vehicle's registration and insurance card. Defendant did not respond, “[h]e just stood there with a blank stare on his face.” The officer asked a second time, and defendant “shrugged his shoulders.” Defendant made no non-verbal gestures to indicate that the papers were on his person or in the truck. Finally, Officer Devlin asked defendant whether he owned the truck or had any paperwork for it. Again, defendant did not respond. Officer Devlin went to the passenger's side of the truck, opened the door, and looked in the glove box—“[t]he most common place” where papers are stored. Although he found no documentation in the glove box, the light from his flashlight reflected against a white object on the passenger's floorboard. That object was a handgun. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress. The court found that Officer Devlin “was a reasonable and credible witness” and concluded that because defendant failed to produce the vehicle registration on demand, Officer Devlin had a right to search for the registration, rental agreement, and insurance in the area where such documents are usually kept. The court further...

Fourth Amendment. Search and Seizure. Watch experts discuss the Court's refusal to broaden the Community Caretaking exception and doctrine of hot pursuit in favor of protecting privacy in the home, and the different standards applied to seizure in civil and criminal cases. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Berkeley School of Law; Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Fourth Amendment. Search and Seizure. Watch experts discuss the Court's refusal to broaden the Community Caretaking exception and doctrine of hot pursuit in favor of protecting privacy in the home, and the different standards applied to seizure in civil and criminal cases. Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Berkeley School of Law; Laurie Levenson, Professor, Loyola School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Look for Kim's “We the People” Voter's Guide in her email newsletter on Sunday.  There are numerous taxing authorities in Colorado.  When raising taxes they each have tunnel vision about their particular taxing entity.  Casper Stockham, founder of America First Republicans, explains some points of the Republican Platform.  America is exceptional and is a case study on liberty for the world to examine.  We must be dedicated to the U.S. Constitution.  U.S. Attorney General Garland exhibits everything wrong with the radical left as he talks about weaponizing the FBI to investigate parents speaking up for their children in school board meetings as domestic terrorists.  Kim and Producer Steve discuss the Facebook whistleblower.  Is she legitimate?  Or is this a play for the government to control the internet? Guest Jay Davidson, CEO and Founder of First American State Bank, discusses the $3.5 Trillion “infrastructure” bill, which will actually cost $5+ Trillion.  There is a regulation in the bill that banks will be required to report any transaction in and out of a bank account that is $600 or above.  This is anti-Constitution and an illegal act.  It is also a burden on the banks and an assault on the privacy of everyday citizens.  The U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated…”  We are to be secure in our possessions and the government cannot snoop into our property.  Regulations like this are how bureaucrats seize control over our lives.  President Woodrow Wilson's actions were very communistic with his control of the state and this $3.5 Trillion “infrastructure” bill is the same.  Jay explains the difference between good inflation and bad inflation.  Government policies must change so that we can preserve our liberty and eliminate government interference in our lives.

In this archive episode, Dennis discusses circumstances where warrantless entry into private property is allowed. Recorded on 01/10/2018. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant. The court, however, did specify that an arrest warrant (as opposed to a search warrant) would have sufficed for entry into the suspect's residence if there had been reason to believe that the suspect was within the home. Payton and related case law establish that the principle that a person in a home, particularly his or her own, is entitled Fourth Amendment protections not afforded to persons in automobiles, as per Whren v. United States, or to persons in public, as per United States v. Watson. Constructive Possession and Miranda with multiple passengers in a motor vehicle. Kirk v Lousianna http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1252149.html?fbclid=IwAR1zLNb9jCIpn1RMVKzeuPeNm654AcRs84IptNCdgpdudnB4k6kcdcc7gJs (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1252149.html) US v. Santana 1976 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/38/?fbclid=IwAR1a7BgeNeEGpxIHnUUH__3ZJX1Ob-5oliGQh9Jh9tyeS8lsVB9S126b8JA (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/427/38/)

On January 6, a mob of pro-Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College vote. As lawmakers were being evacuated by Capitol police, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, tried to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd shot Babbitt as she was climbing through the window and Babbitt died later that day. In the polarized debate over January 6, the death of Ashli Babbitt has become a focal point and one of unusual political valence. Many on the right view her as a martyred hero and the police officer that shot her as an example of excessive force. Those on the left, who have traditionally been outspoken about police killings, have largely stayed quiet. To the extent they've commented, it's been to emphasize the unique circumstances of the Capitol insurrection as justification for the use of lethal force. The Department of Justice, having reviewed the incident, determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge Officer Byrd with violating Babbitt's civil rights, although DOJ did not conclude one way or the other, whether the shooting was justified under the Fourth Amendment.To work through the legal issues around the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, Alan Rozenshtein spoke with Seth Stoughton, associate professor of law at the University of South Carolina and the coauthor of a recent Lawfare post on the shooting. Stoughton is a nationally recognized expert on police use of force. A former police officer himself, he was a key witness for the murder prosecution of Derek Chauvin, the police officer who killed George Floyd. Alan spoke with Stoughton about the murky factual records surrounding the Babbitt shooting, the complex constitutional and statutory issues that it raises and what its political effects say about the broader prospects for police reform.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this archive, Dennis answers some group questions as well as provide insights on MV Violations and Wingspan Searches. Recorded on 12/12/2017. State v Eckel 2006 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1107296.html?fbclid=IwAR0B_HCJ2h3wtsF01yuKHVOAyHkj7EpQgSZRLBp97C_iocECblFJtMbdnP0 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1107296.html) We do not view Article I, Paragraph 7 as a procedural matter but as a reaffirmation of the privacy rights guaranteed to our citizens and of our duty as judges to secure them. So viewed, the Belton rationale simply does not pass muster. That is not to suggest that bright lines are not salutary, only that they cannot be the sole justification for a warrantless search. Indeed, a bright-line that remains true to an exception's roots is a worthy consideration. In that connection, one scholar has observed: If any bright line rule had been necessary to resolve the issue in Belton, it would have been the opposite of the rule that the Court announced ․ [O]ccupants almost invariably are removed before an automobile is searched; and once they have been removed, there is no longer much chance that they can secure weapons from the automobile or destroy evidence there. [Albert W. Alschuler, Bright Line Fever and the Fourth Amendment, 45 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 227, 274 (1984).] That is the line we draw here. Once the occupant of a vehicle has been arrested, removed and secured elsewhere, the considerations informing the search incident to arrest exception are absent and the exception is inapplicable. We thus return to Chimel and to Welsh and declare their reasoning to be the critical path to the application of the search incident to arrest exception under Article I, Paragraph 7 of our constitution. That, in turn, answers the open issue in Pierce. Obviously, where a defendant has been arrested but has not been removed and secured, the court will be required to determine, on a case-by-case basis whether he or she was in a position to compromise police safety or to carry out the destruction of evidence, thus justifying resort to the search incident to arrest exception. In Michigan v. Long, 103 S. Ct. 3469 (1983), the Court established the right of an officer to conduct a Terry-type "frisk" (protective inspection) of the passenger compartment of a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation when the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.MICHIGAN v. LONG | FindLaw Nervousness & Furtive Movements.— State v. Lund, 119 N.J. 35 (1990) State v. Lund :: 1990 :: Supreme Court of New Jersey Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: New Jersey Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia HELD: The Michigan v. Long rule "should be followed to protect New Jersey's police community." BUT, "nervousness and furtive gestures" alone, exhibited by the occupants of an automobile will not give rise to a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver or a passenger is presently armed and dangerous. See State of NJ v. Daniels (1993)STATE v. DANIELS | 264 N.J. Super. 161 (1993) | https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FLeagle.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR06l2XgoYwUPw7vlIIrSfPavdBs7Gja1aIRkG_wdUobL8sBfXeklm7ybws&h=AT3dI4S6MHSTZbS-pEn1QUsSMut6BvLZU2wDFN6kNjaOQiWYGFOJYI4F1qa_fgoT7S7Izoxs0cd7E9Og_-Wr4nCbMyJv43VzUuV5m4f_3sd-bx94AlQ7M5eO7WhbfL8ASw&__tn__=-UK-R (Leagle.com)

On March 1-2, 1991, the Federalist Society's Yale Law School student chapter hosted the annual National Student Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut. The topic of the conference was "The Bill of Rights After 200 Years." The conference's third panel discussed "The Bill of Rights and Governmental Structure."Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law SchoolWalter Berns, Professor Emeritus, Georgetown UniversityProf. Kate Stith, Yale Law SchoolProf. John Langbein, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Good Morning, Colorado, you're listening to the Daily Sun-Up with the Colorado Sun. It's Tuesday September 14th,   Today - When a deep freeze over the winter sent natural gas prices soaring, Xcel Energy proposed a $550 million consumer surcharge to recover its costs. But will the Public Utilities Commission accept that full amount?    But first -- We'd like to thank our sponsor, Pinnacol Assurance. Pinnacol provides caring workers' comp insurance. They were also named one of the most community-minded companies in Colorado. Pinnacol gives back through community investments, scholarships and apprenticeships. At Pinnacol, caring is more than kindness. It's their powertool. See how they put care to work at Pinnacol dot com.   But before we begin, let's go back in time with some Colorado history adapted from historian Derek R Everett's book “Colorado Day by Day”:   Today we're going back to September 14th, 1978 when the show Mork and Mindy premiered on ABC. Mork and Mindy was a spinoff of Happy Days, and focused on the zany antics of Mork from Ork, an alien played by Robin Williams, who landed near Boulder Colorado in his spaceship.    Now, our feature story.   After a historic deep freeze in mid-February sent natural gas prices soaring, Xcel Energy proposed a $550 million consumer surcharge to recover its costs. But critics say Xcel ignored warnings to store more gas and failed to switch to cheaper fuel oil. This left the state's largest electricity provider helpless as spot prices spiked. Now, the state consumer advocate and the Public Utilities Commission staff say the PUC should reject about $130 million of the $550 million that Xcel wants to pass on to Colorado electric and gas customers. Colorado Sun reporter Michael Booth explains the situation.    And Before we go, here are a few stories that you should know about today:   The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Colorado Springs police officers violated a man's Fourth Amendment right to privacy when they set up a camera on a utility pole across the street from his home and recorded footage for three months without obtaining a search warrant. Police mounted the camera in June 2015 after receiving a tip that Rafael Phillip Tafoya was involved in drug trafficking, according to the ruling. It wasn't until after reviewing the footage that police applied for a warrant to search his home and found large amounts of methamphetamine and cocaine. The court also reversed Tafoya's conviction on drug trafficking charges.   Gov. Jared Polis on Monday criticized federal regulatory delays in rolling out coronavirus vaccine booster shots, dismissing concerns that the vaccine doses are unnecessary and could be better used elsewhere. During a news conference Polis said “At the very least, the FDA should get out of the way and allow people to make this choice to protect themselves. He also said two departing vaccine regulators who argued booster shots are unneeded have “blood on their hands and that there are thousands of Americans that are dead today because of their delays on the booster shot.”    The latest draft maps of Colorado's new state Senate and House districts would make it difficult for Republicans to challenge Democratic control of the legislature, according to analysis of the proposals released Monday. The maps released Monday are the first plans drawn by nonpartisan redistricting staff based on a decade of demographic changes captured in 2020 census data, and take into account input from more than two dozen public hearings held around the state.   Pediatricians across the state are being bombarded with requests for doctor's notes as parents try to get their kids exempt from wearing a mask at school despite few medical-based reasons not to do so. In mask-averse Douglas County, elected leaders already opted to create their own health department to sidestep unpopular COVID-19 public health orders and some parents have turned angry when their requests for doctor's notes were denied.   For more information on all of these stories, visit our website, www.coloradosun.com. And don't forget to tune in again tomorrow.   The Colorado Sun is non-partisan and completely independent. We're always dedicated to telling the in-depth stories we need today more than ever. And The Sun is supported by readers and listeners like you.   Right now, you can head to ColoradoSun.com and become a member. Starting at $5 per month for a basic membership and if you bump it up to $20 per month, you'll get access to our exclusive politics and outdoors newsletters. Thanks for starting your morning with us and don't forget to tune in again tomorrow. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits Miranda on your motor vehicle stops and answers some group questions. Recorded on 11/16/2017. The question posed in this case by the officer was, “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?" Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." However this is changed when you smell marijuana with the intention to arrest for the odor. STATE v. HICKMAN | FindLaw In Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants.” Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”: https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.justia.com%2Fcases%2Fnew-jersey%2Fappellate-division-published%2F1988%2F229-n-j-super-215-0.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1AqknLd-lWSsKwZldbxlJ8IJ9HjjxlD677w9hc0XRJmvoacftCFCIGGKI&h=AT0NyVHzslBEtPT5tMmNIkfQr-V-vnE7_VUkm4LiMJS2s903ah9IraZx7-NOgKAaw3dfjXHppKRs46xOZcwKN-qFxjo8bSe616jAm1XNhN-GDbt3W17u7xMFBd3SMxDJALcGkuBniKjBm4q79A&__tn__=-UK-R (https://law.justia.com/.../1988/229-n-j-super-215-0.html) Ohio v. Robinette (1996) US Supreme Court ....There is no requirement under the 4th Amendment that police, during the course of a motor vehicle stop or other investigative detention, must advise the person detained that he or she is “Free to go” before a consent search may be lawfully obtained.

In this archive episode, Dennis revisits the topic of permissible questions during a motor vehicle stop and answers other group questions. Recorded on 11/13/2017. State v. Hickman - A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." May request a motorist's driving credentials Should advise the motorist of the reason for the stop (Doesn't have to!) May run a computer check May ask questions reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop; **Inconsistent or contradictory answers provided by the vehicle's occupants may then permit an officer to broaden the inquiry and ask more intrusive questions designed to confirm or dispel suspicions of criminal activity** May issue a citation State v Chapman (2000) https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fnj-superior-court-appellate-division%2F1035452.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1WTJjMtesl6q3StLnPPH5-f52RQRyZoAR7UYo9-89wK0jzBJRsCuobDrY&h=AT30TFR6QL92B8a0HSlPAi5sQa65a9xHEWehDEczxRG4rIHx3HIIy9f1Jr8o_OOz_GitQd3V4XNj2X57DS6b_VtpQsDmkfs8ZVQbHg-5rzmg4Ho0UA0xBeSVDU8Prwc_CR3h41CyYDqq9LVaBw&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) State v Hickman (2000) The question posed in this case by the officer was “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?' Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court, the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. Thus, in Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants. Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”:

Two Bay Area residents have filed class-action lawsuits against the century-old practice of chalking tires as a form of parking enforcement. One suit claims it's a violation of drivers' Fourth Amendment rights, and similar lawsuits have popped up across the country. Reporter Rachel Swan joins host Cecilia Lei to explain the debate. | Unlimited Chronicle access: sfchronicle.com/pod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this archive episode, Dennis answers a variety of questions regarding tinted windows, parked vehicles, and roadside questioning. Recorded on 09/27/2017. Questioning on an MV STOP May request a motorist's driving credentials. Should advise the motorist of the reason for the stop. May run a computer check. May ask questions reasonably related to the reason for the traffic stop; **Inconsistent or contradictory answers provided by the vehicle's occupants may then permit an officer to broaden the inquiry and ask more intrusive questions designed to confirm or dispel suspicions of criminal activity** May issue a citation State v Chapman (2000) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1035452.html?fbclid=IwAR1X5LUDBHV979jXVpi8xKbhZCnw8qljo9qZAqbsJ6bYA_yEzA7w_RPlOIE (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1035452.html) State v Hickman (2000) The question posed in this case by the officer was “You look really nervous, do you have something on you that you should surrender right now? Any contraband, weapons, anything like that?' Defendant admitted to it and handed over a bag of cocaine from his shoe. When the police lawfully conduct a motor vehicle stop they may question the occupants, even on a subject unrelated to the purpose of the stop, without violating the Fourth Amendment, so long as such questioning does not extend the duration of the stop. Roadside questioning of a motorist is not transformed into “custodial interrogation” that must be preceded by Miranda warnings simply because a police officer's questioning is accusatory in nature or designed to elicit incriminating evidence. According to the court the brief questioning of the defendant after the lawful motor vehicle stop of the car in which he was the passenger was perfectly valid. Thus, in Berkemer, the Court held that a police officer was not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspected drunk driver before asking him whether “he had been using intoxicants. Similarly, in State v. Toro, 229 N.J.Super. 215, 551 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1988), we held that police officers who observed a package at the foot of a driver stopped for a motor vehicle offense, which they suspected was a container for drugs, could ask what was in the package without giving Miranda warnings. Although the police officers in Toro ordered the driver out of the car and frisked him for weapons before questioning him, we concluded that the questioning was not “custodial”: A traffic stop is presumptively temporary and brief and thus questioning incident to an ordinary traffic stop is quite different from stationhouse interrogation. Miranda warnings may be needed, however, if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop "impose a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." However, this is changed when you smell marijuana with the intention to arrest for the odor. STATE v. HICKMAN | FindLaw

FAA Sued for Illegal Remote ID | Lawsuit Outcome to Impact UAS Policy, UTM, and UAS Integration Today's show is about RaceDayQuads, a hobby shop with a large financial stake in the sUAS do-it-yourself world, filing a lawsuit against FAA over Remote ID. They argue that Remote ID violates Constitutional guarantees. RaceDayQuads sued the FAA in April early 2021 and filed the above arguments on August 4, 2021. Next, the FAA will reply to the argument in writing, which is due September 3, 2021. Then, RaceDayQuads will reply to their reply, due September 23, 2021. After that, The Department of Justice (DOJ) and RaceDayQuads will argue in court in front of a judge, which will likely happen this winter. The ruling is expected in the Spring of 2022. The outcome of this lawsuit will impact UAS policy, UTM, and UAS integration into the NAS. Updates will come as the lawsuit continues What is the Lawsuit About? The argument alleges that tracking and recording GPS location violates the Fourth Amendment. The lawsuit cites Carpenter v. United States to assert that Remote ID is “more intrusive” than technology “already recognized as unconstitutional.” The argument alleges that the concept of FRIAs create a forced association with a private, dues-collecting organization to exercise privilege in the public airspace. This, the suit argues, is a violation of the First Amendment. The argument alleges that a private entity being able to deny access to public services violates Fifth Amendment protections. RaceDayQuads goes on to argue over the actual authority of the FAA. They assert that Congress has authorized the FAA to regulate “navigable airspace”…“above minimum altitude,” but that the Remote ID rule uses broader terminology than their authority, allowing themselves to regulate “airspace of the United States” (e.g., to the ground). The suit claims that backyards or below tree lines et cetera do not count as navigable airspace. As an aside, the suit also complains about not being able to register a park or one's back yard as a FRIA. Donate, and Support the cause: https://www.gofundme.com/f/savefpv   Get Your Biggest and Most Common Drone Certificate Questions Answered by Downloading this FREE Part 107 PDF Make sure to get yourself the all-new Drone U landing pad! Get your questions answered: https://thedroneu.com/. If you enjoy the show, the #1 thing you can do to help us out is to subscribe to it on iTunes. Can we ask you to do that for us real quick? While you're there, leave us a 5-star review, if you're inclined to do so. Thanks! https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/ask-drone-u/id967352832. Become a Drone U Member. Access to over 30 courses, great resources, and our incredible community. Follow Us Site – https://thedroneu.com/ Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/droneu Instagram – https://instagram.com/thedroneu/ Twitter – https://twitter.com/thedroneu YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/c/droneu Timestamps - What the lawsuit against the FAA is all about? - What are the main arguments in the lawsuit against FAA? - Why is GPS collection a 4th amendment violation? - Is the remote ID a masked surveillance program by the FAA? - Is the FAAs definition of navigable airspace a constitutional and regulation issue? - Does the NPRM fail to meet its purpose? Is it an illegal rule-making process? - Is the FAA hiding details from drone pilots?  - Is FAA's remote-id regulation a violation of the first amendment? - Is a backyard navigable airspace and does data from the drone a breach of constitutional rights? - Why are carriers like T-Mobile and Comcast on the FAA panel and how is it a breach of individual constitutional rights? And what can the lawsuit aim to achieve? - Does the lawsuit potentially delay the rollout of drone regulations and what are its implications? - Where can you find all data and information on the lawsuit?

In this archive episode, Dennis explains that opening a locked container or safe does not require an additional warrant. Recorded on 09/17/2017. New Jersey adopts the federal standard...State of NJ v. Jackson 1993 In conducting the search the police discovered a locked safe, which was seized and opened, revealing incriminating evidence. The court rejected the argument that the scope of the warrant had been exceeded by the opening of a locked safe, concluding that "[t]he locked safe was a likely source for the specified documents and could therefore be opened." http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html?fbclid=IwAR0mTN-8RHGzJFuJRmng-yipCKfDYzjmW_WzUv42Wkwd67R8ZMrskgVrW5M (http://law.justia.com/.../1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html) State v. Hansen, 732 P.2d 127, 131 (Utah 1987) (warrant to search premises for drugs permitted search of locked box within, rejecting contention that a separate warrant was required to open the box). Although article I, ¶ 7 of the New Jersey Constitution may very well afford our citizens greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendment (see State v. Hempele, supra, 120 N.J. at 195, 576 A.2d 793 (and cases cited *210 therein)) neither public policy nor New Jersey decisional law compel a result different from that espoused in the federal authorities referenced above. Indeed, although not dispositive, Reldan, supra, 100 N.J. at 195, 495 A.2d 76, suggests an analysis which is both practical and consistent with the foregoing. http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html?fbclid=IwAR1madzfd7NXtpitT-KN6XZnbiq07b4iQQhrBrvYVfOhBxgYeOPJ_jAwKTw (http://law.justia.com/.../1993/268-n-j-super-194-1.html)

In this archive episode, Dennis explains to ask for consent when dealing with closed and locked containers. Recorded on 08/15/2017. US v. Ross 1982 Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. Pp. 804-825. (a) The "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , applies to searches of vehicles that are supported by probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. In this class of cases, a search is not unreasonable if based on objective facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained. Pp. 804-809. (b) However, the rationale justifying the automobile exception does not apply so as to permit a warrantless search of any movable container that is believed to be carrying an illicit substance and that is found in a public place - even when the container is placed in a vehicle (not otherwise believed to be carrying contraband). United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 ; Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 . Pp. 809-814. [456 U.S. 798, 799] (c) Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. Pp. 817-824. Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fus-supreme-court%2F456%2F798.html%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR2qQpqX52X5aJT_QONxdPWBUpROGIxHs3Zh3qnwruAByYjkiKOVMt7Qll0&h=AT1ER9zxj71_KOpEjaODOlNXEaojUeb7Hzvf_0MwUuvJ74rPRKJFvnpvc-jhv_GrTPRe-ZDFMp74K5JdEBtJhdjCGgkP0Dopk_Y9RUTp0Hc9PN_P0X8qkTjsYAcYGNYEGg&__tn__=-UK-R (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/456/798.html)

On March 1-2, 1991, the Federalist Society's Yale Law School student chapter hosted the annual National Student Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut. The topic of the conference was "The Bill of Rights After 200 Years." The conference began with introductory remarks and a panel titled "Should the Bill of Rights Fully Protect Fundamental Freedoms?".Welcome & Introduction:Introductory Remarks: Prof. Owen M. Fiss, Yale Law SchoolIntroductory Remarks: Judge Ralph K. Winter, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second CircuitFeaturing:Prof. Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law SchoolProf. Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Robert Ellickson, Yale Law SchoolModerator: William Barr, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The use of the kind of chokehold that killed George Floyd last year should, according to constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, be a clear-cut violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on excessive police force. But as Chemerinsky explains in his new book "Presumed Guilty," chokeholds remain in use in most of the United States because of a decades-old Supreme Court decision that tightly restricts federal lawsuits challenging police misconduct. We'll talk about the judicial doctrines that enable illegal police behavior and how to reform them.

This week on Happy Hour, Benjamin and Zac follow up on the iCloud Child Safety backlash and look forward to the iPhone 13 with new reports from Bloomberg about expected new video and photo features. Plus, a wacky way to reset AirPods in iOS 15 and the state of Apple's presence in the home. Sponsored by MacUpdater: Keep all your software up-to-date effortlessly. Download MacUpdater at corecode.io/happyhour. Get 10% off by using HAPPYHOURQ3 at checkout. Sponsored by ExpressVPN: Take back your Internet privacy today and get 3 months free with a 1-year package at ExpressVPN.com/HappyHour. Sponsored by BetterHelp: As a listener, you'll get 10% off your first month by visiting our sponsor at BetterHelp.com/MacHappyHour. Follow Zac Hall @apollozac Benjamin Mayo @bzamayo Subscribe Apple Podcasts Overcast Spotify Read More Apple SVP Craig Federighi responds to confusion over iOS 15 iCloud child safety policies in new interview Opinion: The Apple CSAM scanning controversy was entirely predictable Apple employees express concerns about new CSAM scanning Apple releases latest macOS Monterey public beta Foxconn hints at iPhone 13 component shortages; new camera assembly process iOS 15 to link AirPods with your Apple ID as part of Find My Network Misusing CSAM scanning in US prevented by Fourth Amendment, argues Corellium Report: iPhone 13 Pro models to add Portrait video mode, ProRes recording, other camera improvements Listen to more 9to5 Podcasts Stacktrace Apple @ Work Alphabet Scoop Electrek The Buzz Podcast Space Explored Rapid Unscheduled Discussions Enjoy the podcast? Shop Apple at Amazon to support 9to5Mac Happy Hour!

Guest David Derigiotis of Burns & Wilcox joins Dave to discuss protections related to fraud provided by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Ben looks at an Appeals Court case on peer-to-peer file sharing and the Fourth Amendment, Dave discusses the FBI's recent testimony before a Senate Judiciary Committee on whether or not to ban ransomware payments.  While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Links to stories: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 20-2570 FBI tells Congress ransomware payments shouldn't be banned Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com or simply leave us a message at (410) 618-3720. Hope to hear from you. 

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, in our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing when the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies, and how to determine if an unlawful search has occurred. In this episode, we discuss: The rules governing searches and seizures How to determine if an individual's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated How a government agent can conduct a search Analyzing two hypos from previous California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2015 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/gbx/July2015_CBXSelectedAnswers_EssayQuestions1-6_R.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2019 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/July-2019-Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf) Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-70-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-criminal-law-and-procedure/) Podcast Episode 79: Tackling an MEE Criminal Law/Procedure and Evidence Essay (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-79-tackling-an-mee-criminal-law-procedure-and-evidence-essay/) Podcast Episode 128: Listen and Learn – Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-128-listen-and-learn-privilege-against-self-incrimination-and-miranda-rights/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-141-listen-and-learn-the-fourth-amendment/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Lavelle Law defense attorney, James Doerr, continues his series of discussions of newly decided cases. In this episode, we will be discussing the recently published case of Lange v. California.

Today we think of the Equal Protection Clause as requiring equal treatment of the laws. But in addition to anything else it covers, at its core it's supposed to protect, well, equal protection. Yet if you bring a claim that you're not being protected equally the courts generally have little to offer. However, civil rights attorney Laura Schauer Ives just won an appeal at the Tenth Circuit in a tragic case where the court did take “protection” seriously, denying qualified immunity to police officers who failed to protect a woman from her stalking ex-partner. She joins us to discuss the victory and its wider impact. Also, what's a “closely-regulated industry?” That term is often used to deny businesses some of their Fourth Amendment protections, and the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that massage parlors qualify. IJ's Josh Windham joins us to analyze whether this is becoming an exception that swallows the rule, i.e. the rule that the government come back with a warrant. Transcript forthcoming. Dalton v. Reynolds, https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-2047.pdf Killgore v. City of South El Monte, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/08/20-55666.pdf DeShaney v. Winnebago County, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/189/#tab-opinion-1957769 New York v. Burger, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/691/ Laura Schauer Ives, http://nmcivilrights.com/laura-schauer-ives/ Josh Windham, https://ij.org/staff/joshua-windham/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

When it comes to privacy, there is no one more based than Senator Rand Paul. That's why we were happy to have him join us as the first-ever guest on the show. Tune in as he discusses the erosion of this civil liberty, his long and valiant history of working to restore it, and how the corruption he's been fighting for so long within our intelligence community may now be impacting Tucker Carlson. This is a two-part episode. Come back next month for a more extensive deep dive into privacy and the Fourth Amendment! Watch it here: https://youtu.be/c8WTo6OnWN8

The Fifth Circuit is not boring. In just one week they served up enough qualified immunity cases to fill an entire episode, and then some. Nicolas Riley of Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection joins us to discuss a case he litigated where the circuit failed to apply the Fourth Amendment to some rather un-Fourth Amendment friendly behavior by school officials. IJ's Anya Bidwell then sends us in the other direction where the circuit denied qualified immunity to a pair of paramedics who refused to help a prisoner, and we discuss whether the Supreme Court's recent tea leaves pushed it in that direction. Finally, we take apart an en banc denial where a majority of the circuit most definitely is not reading those tea leaves—although Judge Willet may be in the form of a telegraph message. Transcript forthcoming. J.W. v. Paley, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/19/19-20429.0.pdf Kelson v. Clark, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-10764-CV0.pdf Ramirez v. Guadarrama, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-10055-CV0.pdf Taylor v. Riojas, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1261_bq7c.pdf Nicolas Riley, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-team/ Anya Bidwell, https://ij.org/staff/anya-bidwell/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Lange v. California on June 23, 2021. Lange was pulled over by a California policeman for misdemeanor driving violations. Instead of stopping when the police officer initiated the stop, Lange drove home and fled into his garage. The officer followed him into his garage—without a warrant—and arrested him for drunk driving. Lange moved to suppress the evidence of his intoxication recovered after the police officer entered his garage. California state courts ruled against Lange, the California Supreme Court denied review, and Lange appealed the Fourth Amendment issue to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the hot pursuit exigency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is not a categorical exception where a police officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed a misdemeanor. The 1976 decision in United States v. Santana cited by amici does not create a categorical flight exception. Instead, determining whether hot pursuit of a misdemeanant allows for a warrantless entry requires case by case analysis. Featuring: -- Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute -- Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP -- Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute

Josh and Kurt talk to Chris Weiland from Restore the Fourth Minnesota. Restore The Fourth Minnesota is nonprofit dedicated to restoring the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and ending unconstitutional mass government surveillance. Chris drops a ton of knowledge about how to be an effective tech activist, what his group is doing, and most importantly we get actionable advice! Show Notes Restore the Fourth Minnesota Restore the Fourth Minnesota on Twitter Writ of assistance Carpenter vs United States How many US federal laws are there? Restore the Fourth Episode 114 – Review of "Click Here to Kill Everybody" EFF EFA ACLU affiliates Glenn Greenwald TED talk

Border agents have broad authority to search the smartphone or laptop of anyone entering the country. That might be about to change, however, if the Supreme Court takes up one of several cases challenging such searches. Professor Orin Kerr, of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, joins the show to discuss the interplay between the Fourth Amendment and the border, the Court's evolving views on smart-device searches, and what might happen if any or all of these cases is taken up.

Jami Floyd, senior editor for race and justice and legal editor at WNYC, talks about the latest decisions issued by the Supreme Court as it wraps up its term, including a free speech case involving a former high school cheerleader, a unanimous ruling involving the Fourth Amendment and more.

Is it illegal for businesses to require proof of vaccination? Short answer is no. In some states such as Texas, Florida, Utah and others, they have banned vaccine passports, but that does not apply to private businesses. Misinformation is floating around on the internet citing protection from Fourth Amendment, but the reality is, a business can ask you to voluntarily disclose your vaccination status and you can refuse, but that business also has the right to refuse you entry. Sasha Hupka, reporter at CapRadio.org, joins us for some fact checking. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In This Episode: Erin and Weer’d discuss the latest Supreme Court case involving gun rights, and yes it went 9-0 in our favor! Both the ATF ruling on receiver definition and David Chipman's confirmation hearing as ATF director has yet to materialize.  Is the Biden Administration even prioritizing gun control? A question was asked: How could Bill Maher could be fully vaccinated, yet test positive for COVID-19? Weer'd talks about what PCR is and how this might be possible. Xander gives us his Independent Thoughts on food prep and impulse buying. David talks about Pistol Caliber Carbines. Finally, Matt from Geeks, Gadgets and Guns gives us some survival tips for the open road. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that’s $1/podcast) and you’ll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic: Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote Biden's Proposed Ghost Gun Rule Still Not Officially Published Bill Maher is Fully Vaccinated and Tested Positive for Covid Lab Alert: FDA Issues Safety Letter about Potential for False Positive Results with Antigen Tests for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Polymerase chain reaction Gun Lovers and Other Strangers: Mauser C96 Beretta 93R Heckler & Koch VP70 CAA MCKS & Ronis Colt Model 635 Marlin Camp Carbine Ruger Deerfield Sig MPX Colt AR6951 Beretta Cx4 Storm Kel-Tec SUB2000 Hi-Point 995 Ruger PC Carbine CZ Scorpion Kriss Vector Tavor SAR  

In a stunning decision and a defeat for gun-grabbing socialist Democrats, the US Supreme court issued an unanimous ruling that warrantless seizures of firearms, as in private property, violates the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The AFT is at it again. This the unelected bureaucracy is seeking to put more restrictions on citizens liberty by redefining terms. Are you tired of arbitrary and unconstitutional behavior from a group of elitists in DC? For our Duracoat Finished Firearm of the Week, Professor Paul will consider the NAK9, a 9mm pistol based upon the Kalashnikov design from Century Arms.  What modification and additions were made to improve this gun? Thanks for being a part of SOTG! We hope you find value in the message we share. If you’ve got any questions, here are some options to contact us: Send an Email Send a Text Call Us Enjoy the show! And remember…You’re a Beginner Once, a Student For Life! TOPICS COVERED THIS EPISODE • [0:01:30] Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms www.federalregister.gov • [0:07:20] DuraCoat Finished Firearms - DuraCoat University     • TOPIC: NAK9 Tricked Out - WWII OD Green• Huge thanks to our Partners:Brownells | CrossBreed | Duracoat | SWAT Fuel • [0:24:55] Supreme Court rules warrantless home gun confiscation is unconstitutional in 9-0 vote americanmilitarynews.com     • Red Flags for ERPOs & GVROs by John Edeen drgo.us/red-flags • [0:48:01] Q&A Session​    • What's the best slug for anti-material use in 12 gauge? - Andrew R FEATURING: American Military News, DRGO.us, Madison Rising, Jarrad Markel, Paul Markel, SOTG University PARTNERS: Brownells, Inc., CrossBreed Holsters, DuraCoat Firearm Finishes, SWAT Fuel FIND US ON: Full30, Parler, MeWe.com, iTunes, Stitcher, AppleTV, Roku, Amazon, GooglePlay, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, tumblr SOURCES From americanmilitarynews.com: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that warrantless gun confiscation from Americans’ homes is unconstitutional, voting unanimously on the side of a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself. According to Caniglia v Strom, a lower court had previously determined that police confiscating the guns without a warrant fell under the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception, but a 9-0 vote from the nation’s top court struck down that ruling. (Click Here for Full Article)

Supreme Court unanimously sides against Biden admin, further protects Fourth Amendment rights https://www.theblaze.com/news/supreme-court-unanimously-protects-fourth-amendment-rights?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202021-05-18&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM The sixth borough: Florida state records quantify defections from NY https://nypost.com/2021/05/15/florida-records-quantify-number-of-defections-from-ny/?utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow A UFC Fighter Dedicated His Victory to Victims of Communism. Here’s Why It Was Important https://fee.org/articles/a-ufc-fighter-dedicated-his-victory-to-victims-of-communism-here-s-why-it-was-important/ Follow on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@goodmorningliberty Follow on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz3YDYP6bFMR4BAPCZdvk1g Need someone to talk to? Betterhelp.com/gml Interested in learning how to Day Trade?  Mastermytrades.com Support the show and join the live group! Patreon.com/goodmorningliberty Like or intro song? Listen to "3 Pill Morning" on Apple and Spotify https://www.3pillmorning.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in Caniglia v. Strom, which focused on whether the community-caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extended to the home. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is vacated and the case remanded. Although Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court was unanimous, The Chief Justice filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Breyer. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed concurring opinions. Our two experts join us to offer commentary on this decision. Featuring: -- Matt Cavedon, Criminal Defense Attorney, Gainesville, GA-- Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Caniglia v. Strom. The issue was whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home. In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Neither the holding nor logic of Cady v. Dombrowski justifies the removal of Edward Caniglia’s firearms from his home by police officers under a ‘community caretaking exception’ to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement."Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed concurring opinions.Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join Forrest Cooper, digital editor of Recoil Magazine and former Army Ranger to discuss Steven Crowder's pending lawsuit against YouTube, the Brooklyn Center new civilian 'police force', leftists who really believe the right is a source of most of the terror in the country, skyrocketing gas prices, and the SCOTUS rule in favor of the Fourth Amendment, refusing to allow police to raid homes without warrants. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A unanimous Supreme Court declared that the seizure of a Rhode Island man's legally owned firearms violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Cam has a closer look at the opinion in the case, and what impact it might have on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens going forward.

For much of our nation’s history, courts asked whether government physically intruded on property to determine if it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court later adopted a standard looking at whether the government violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But in recent years, the property-based approach has […]

For much of our nation’s history, courts asked whether government physically intruded on property to determine if it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court later adopted a standard looking at whether the government violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But in recent years, the property-based approach has been making a comeback, most recently in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Carpenter v. United States. Will the property-based approach knock out the reasonable expectation of privacy test? Tune in to find out! Special thanks to guests Orin Kerr, James, Stern, and Jamil Jaffer. Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to Dissed@pacificlegal.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On today's edition of Like It Or Not w/ Benjamin Dixon and Rebecca Azor: Minneapolis police shoot and kill 20 year old Daunte Wright during traffic stop. Also, an army Lieutenant is suing two Virginia police officers for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights as video surfaces of the traffic stop that led to police brutality. Plus Michigan GOP Chair Ron Weiser spoke of “burning” Governor Gretchen Whitmer “at the stake”, and Jimmy Dore appeared on Tucker Carlson's show to continue his attacks on Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Finally, we celebrate the life of DMX. All that and more on Like It Or Not!

On January 6th, a mob stormed the US Capitol to try to stop the certification of the presidential election results. Many of the insurrectionists will be tracked down and charged with crimes, in part, because their cell phone placed them in the Capitol Building during the attack. The case of Carpenter v. United States is the closest the Supreme Court has come to weighing in on the matter of historical cell phone data, but the decision didn’t not offer an opinion on law enforcement’s use of a location specific cell phone tower data dump without an individual suspect in mind. This brings up questions about the way warrants usually work under the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

Super Bowl LV felt like the first normal thing we’ve done since the pandemic, despite all the social justice messaging. Jeep’s commercial sounded great but had a major issue. The Supreme Court will review the necessity of the Fourth Amendment, along with multiple 2020 election lawsuits. A column in the L.A. Times called “What can you do about the Trumpites next door?” complains after a neighbor shoveled the author’s driveway. A 95-year-old German woman was charged as complicit in the Holocaust, and Glenn dives into how that happened. Does the U.S. have its first political prisoner since FDR? The Supreme Court ruled that California can’t ban all of indoor worship. The Hyppo Awards are coming, and Glenn goes over the endless list of nominees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court will review the necessity of the Fourth Amendment, along with multiple 2020 election lawsuits. A column in the L.A. Times called “What can you do about the Trumpites next door?” complains after a neighbor shoveled the author’s driveway. The Hyppo Awards are coming, and Glenn goes over the endless list of nominees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Private entities—in particular, technology giants like internet service providers, email services and social networks—play a vital role in helping law enforcement fight child pornography online. But the involvement of private entities does not eliminate the Fourth Amendment issues that come with electronic surveillance. In fact, the more the private entities cooperate with the government, the more likely it is that courts will consider them government agents, and the evidence they collect will be subject to the same Fourth Amendment restrictions as apply to law enforcement agencies. Jeff Kosseff is an assistant professor at the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department. As part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract research paper series, he published a paper entitled, "Online Service Providers and the Fight Against Child Exploitation: The Fourth Amendment Agency Dilemma." Alan Rozenshtein spoke with Jeff about how the government and internet companies can thread the needle on fighting digital child exploitation without running afoul of the Constitution.