First Circuit Prohibits Warrantless Search of Cellular Phones
|
|
- Kenneth May
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 First Circuit Prohibits Warrantless Search of Cellular Phones In United States v. Wurie, 1 a police officer, while performing routine surveillance, observed what he believed was an illegal drug transaction between Fred Wade and defendant Brima Wurie. 2 After brief questioning about the drug transaction by two officers, Wade admitted to buying the drugs from B. 3 The officers then notified a third officer, who was following Wurie in his car, and that officer arrested Wurie for distributing crack cocaine. 4 At the police station, officers took, among other things, two of the defendant s cellular phones; one of the phones repeatedly received calls from a number identified by the phone as my house, which could be seen in plain view by the officers. 5 The officers then opened the phone, revealing a wallpaper of a young woman holding a baby, and pressed a button to access the call log on the defendant s cellular phone, which, in turn, revealed the specific phone number labeled as my house. 6 The officers suspected that the defendant was lying about his address and involvement with the sale of drugs, so they researched the address associated with the phone number labeled as my house and went to that location. They arrived at an apartment and saw the young woman and baby that were pictured on the wallpaper of the cellular phone. 7 Officers eventually entered the apartment in an attempt to freeze it while they acquired a warrant, which ultimately led to the seizure of drugs, guns, and money. 8 Wurie was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, distribution of crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. 9 Wurie filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his cellular phone. The district court denied the defendant s request, however, and the jury subsequently found Wurie guilty on all three counts. 10 Wurie appealed the lower court s decision, contending that the warrantless search of his cellular F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 2013 WL (U.S. Jan. 17, 2014) (No ). 2. Id. at Id. 4. Id. at Wurie, 728 F.3d at Id. 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. See United States v. Wurie, 612 F. Supp. 2d 104, 105 (D. Mass. 2009), rev d, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 2013 WL (U.S. Jan. 17, 2014) (No ). 10. Wurie, 728 F.2d at 2.
2 2014] CASE NOTE 13 phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the search conducted by the officers unjustifiably intruded upon his right to privacy. 11 The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. 12 Opposition to the British search and seizure methods inspired the Amendment; it served to protect the privacy rights of citizens against the discretionary powers employed during the colonial period. 13 Today, courts have continuously held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless one of the few exceptions applies. 14 The Supreme Court carved out one of these exceptions in Chimel v. California, 15 holding that a search-incident-toa-lawful-arrest permits an arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction and to search the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items. 16 The Court affirmed this principle in United States v. Robinson, 17 holding that a warrantless search of a cigarette package on the defendant was valid and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. 18 The underlying policy justifications for this exception remained the same: officer safety and the preservation of evidence. 19 The warrantless search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception has been applied to most, if not all, of the objects that can be found on one s person. 20 In New 11. See id. at See U.S. CONST. amend. IV (limiting government s power to conduct reasonable searches and seizures); Ronald F. Wright, Note, The Civil and Criminal Methodologies of the Fourth Amendment, 93 YALE L.J. 1127, (1984) (evaluating searches and seizures under reasonableness test). 13. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 582 n.17, (1980) (claiming framers intended Fourth Amendment to protect against indiscriminate general warrants); see also Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 304 (1921) (claiming personal liberty, personal security, and private property as essence of Constitution); JACOB W. LANDYNSKI, SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THE SUPREME COURT: A STUDY IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION 19 (1966) (tracing Fourth Amendment development from events immediately preceding Revolutionary War); Tracey Maclin, The Complexity of the Fourth Amendment: A Historical Review, 77 B.U. L. REV. 925, 926 (1997) (claiming Fourth Amendment s roots arose from American colonists disapproval of British law enforcement practices). 14. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009) (claiming warrantless search unreasonable, unless exception present); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (ruling searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. ). Exceptions include the search incident-to-arrest exception and exigent-circumstances exception, among others. See Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (discussing search-incident-to- lawful-arrest exception); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51, 90 (1970) (holding [o]nly in exigent circumstances will the judgment of the police as to probable cause serve as a sufficient authorization for a search ) U.S. 752 (2009). 16. Id. at 763 (justifying search-incident-to-arrest exception for reasons of officer safety, preservation of evidence) U.S. 218 (1973). 18. See id. at But see United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 14 (1977) (announcing search incident to lawful arrest, by itself, not enough to overcome constitutional rights), abrogated by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991). 19. See Robinson, 414 U.S. at See Chelsea Oxton, Note, The Search Incident to Arrest Exception Plays Catch Up: Why Police May
3 14 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. II:12 York v. Belton, 21 the Supreme Court held that police may search a container on the arrestee s person because the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of the arrestee s privacy rights. 22 The Court reasoned that a container includes any object capable of holding another object, such as luggage, boxes, or bags. 23 This definition, however, is quite broad and includes more than just objects that can hold an arrestee s personal belongings. 24 Courts are split regarding the constitutionality of warrantless searches of cellular phones incident to a lawful arrest, with a majority of decisions upholding the searches. 25 In People v. Diaz, 26 the Supreme Court of California held that, under Robinson, a cellular phone could be searched incident to a lawful arrest without any further justification; the lawful arrest justified the search. 27 In United States v. Murphy, 28 the Fourth Circuit held that the warrantless search of the defendant s cellular phone was constitutional because of the need for officers to preserve evidence. 29 The Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Flores-Lopez, 30 agreed with this position, and held that officer safety justified a warrantless search of the defendant s cellular phone. 31 Conversely, in United States v. Park, 32 a federal judge in California likened the search of a cellular phone to a Chadwick-type search; the court held that once the police gain control of the phone, they no longer have the ability to search it without a warrant, absent exigent circumstances, because the defendant is no longer in possession of the object and it is not within his immediate control. 33 Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio held similarly in State v. Smith, 34 deciding that a cellular phone is unlike other closed containers because of the high expectation No Longer Search Cell Phones Incident to Arrest Without a Warrant, 43 CREIGHTON L. REV. 1157, 1158 (2010) ( Under the search incident to arrest exception, police officers may search the entire person of an arrestee, including any containers found on the arrestee, incident to a lawful arrest. ) U.S. 454 (1981), abrogated by Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct (2011). 22. See id. at ; see also Robinson, 414 U.S. at (upholding warrantless search of closed cigarette package). 23. See Belton, 453 U.S. at 460 n.4 (defining container for purposes of the rule). 24. See Margaret M. Lawton, Warrantless Searches and Smartphones: Privacy in the Palm of Your Hand?, 16 U. D.C. L. REV. 89, 91, 95, 118 (2012) (stating Supreme Court has broadly defined container ); Cynthia Lee, Package Bombs, Footlockers, and Laptops: What the Disappearing Container Doctrine Can Tell Us About the Fourth Amendment, 100 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 1403, 1414 (2010) (explaining Supreme Court defined container much more expansively ). 25. See Wurie, 728 F.3d at 5 (citing examples). 26. People v. Diaz, 244 P.3d 501 (Cal. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 94 (2011). 27. See id. at 511. But see id. at 513 (Werdegar, J., dissenting) (claiming new electronic devices not analogous to packages or containers) F. 3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, Murphy v. United States, 556 U.S (2009). 29. See id. at 411 (holding search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception allows warrantless cellular phone search) F. 3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012). 31. Id. at No. CR SI., 2007 WL , at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2007). 33. See id. at * N.E.2d 949 (Ohio 2009), cert. denied, Ohio v. Smith, 131 S. Ct. 102 (2010).
4 2014] CASE NOTE 15 of privacy in one s phone. 35 Lastly, the Florida Supreme Court in Smallwood v. State 36 utilized the approach in Arizona v. Gant and declared that once a cellular phone is removed, there is neither a need for officer safety nor a chance that the defendant can destroy the evidence. 37 Applying these factors to Wurie, the First Circuit reversed the district court s decision and held that a warrantless search of a cellular phone, incident to a lawful arrest, violated Wurie s Fourth Amendment rights. 38 The court determined that a cellular phone was unlike any other container because of its ability to hold and store highly personal information, such as addresses, photographs, videos, and messages. 39 The court wrote that the government did not prove that officers needed to search the cellular phone under either of the two underlying policy justifications of the exception officer safety and the preservation of evidence. 40 There was no officer safety justification because once officers realized the phone as well as the data inside it was not, in fact, a weapon or could harm them, officers had no reason to further inspect it. 41 There was no evidence preservation justification, according to the court, because officers could have protected the phone from outside interference without accessing it. 42 Indeed, the court reasoned that if there were a genuine threat that the phone s content could be wiped or overwritten, then the police would routinely use methods of preservation to counteract such threats. Thus, the court saw the risk of evidence destruction as only theoretical. 43 The court then recognized that the Supreme Court insists on bright-line rules in the Fourth Amendment context. 44 Based upon this, the court developed a brightline rule that warrantless searches of cellular phone data are categorically unlawful under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. 45 The creation of the Fourth Amendment was spurred by its drafters intent to create a system that protects privacy interests and personal freedom, a system that, in current times, shields citizens from general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search of a cellular phone intrudes upon 35. See id. at 955; Eunice Parker, Traffic Ticket Reasonable, Cell Phone Search Not: Applying the Search-Incident-to-Arrest Exception to the Cell Phone as Hybrid, 60 DRAKE L. REV. 429, 444 (2012) So. 3d 724 (Fla. 2013). 37. See id. at 735 (requiring warrant to search cellular phone after physical separation). 38. See United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 2013 WL (U.S. Jan. 17, 2014) (No ). 39. Id. at See id. at See id. at Wurie, 728 F.3d at 11. Methods of protecting the contents of a cellular phone include: turning off the phone and removing the battery; putting the phone in a Faraday enclosure, which shields the interior of the phone from external electromagnetic radiation; and copying the entire cellular phone s contents for the purposes of evidence preservation. See id. 43. See id. 44. Id. at See id.
5 16 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW ONLINE [Vol. II:12 these essential civil liberties. Although capable of holding something else under the loose Belton definition of a container a cellular phone has many more capabilities and implicates unique and different privacy concerns. The Supreme Court in Belton could not have imagined the technological developments the future would bring: electronic devices are capable of containing someone s entire personal life, for example, many today hold pictures of loved ones, videos of friends and family, access to home security cameras, and private messages. As Justice Brandeis once wrote, constitutional provisions must have the capacity of adaptation to a changing world. 46 Once a cellular phone is accessed, police officers are no longer searching a container; rather, they are entering into the heart of a person s private life, areas that the founding fathers intended to protect through the Fourth Amendment. With the rapid change and evolution of technology, allowing warrantless searches of cellular phones today could lead to similar searches of future devices with capabilities and privacy concerns far beyond today s cellular phones. A line must be drawn somewhere, and the court correctly drew it at the warrantless search of a cellular phone under these factual circumstances. The alternative to the First Circuit s decision in Wurie allowing courts to apply multi-factor, fact-specific tests to determine the validity of such searches would be very difficult for police officers to apply in the field. The First Circuit s approach not only comports with the underlying policy rationales of the search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception, it also provides easy to follow guidelines for the police. First, when neither officer safety nor evidence preservation is an issue, officers must obtain a warrant under the search-incident-to-arrest exception. Second, if the police have probable cause that a cellular phone contains evidence of a crime and have an immediate and compelling need to act quickly and are unable to obtain a warrant, then the exigent circumstances exception is applicable and they can proceed with the warrantless search. Gant and its progeny have stated these principles time and time again, and there is no need to depart from such a rule, especially as it applies to highly personal and intimate information containers, to wit, cellular phones. The categorical approach leaves officers with a readily administrable rule to get a warrant first and search later. People s privacy interests vastly outweigh this undemanding step. Thus, the First Circuit s holding in Wurie was correct, and courts should continue to require that police officers go through the requisite legal strictures in order to break the seal of privacy. A cellular phone is not analogous to a container. People are increasingly reliant on cellular phones to communicate, research, and plan their lives, and access to cellular phones contents paints a subjective picture of our life Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 472 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 47. Bryan A. Stillwagon, Note, Bringing an End to Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, 42 GA. L. REV. 1165, 1201 (2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
6 2014] CASE NOTE 17 Because the privacy interests people have in the containers and cellular phones they carry are so different, this is a case where the law has to [adapt] to a changing world. 48 The Wurie case will by no means end the debate on warrantless searches of cellular phones. In fact, the government filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari on January 17, Currently, police officers have to resolve conflicting constitutional rulings based on the region in which they are policing. Until the Supreme Court resolves these issues, courts will continue to decide these types of Fourth Amendment cases without uniformity. Anthony J. Gambale 48. Olmstead, 277 U.S. at 472 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 49. See United States v. Wurie, 2013 WL (U.S., Jan. 17, 2014) (granting certiorari); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (No ), 2013 WL , at *10-11.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. RICARDO H. GLASCO, Defendant. Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County. Case No. 05-2010-CF-021349-AXXX-XX. February 24, 2011. John M. Harris, Judge.
More informationxtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case
xtra redit A Classroom Study of a Supreme Court of Ohio Case CELL PHONES: SEARCH AND SEIZURE Analyzing a Case Introduction The Supreme Court of Ohio in December 2009 ruled that the U.S. Constitution s
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-4683
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4683 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO THOMAS MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States
More informationCALLING FOR A STANDARD: WHY COURTS SHOULD APPLY A NEW BALANCING TEST IN CELL PHONE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST
CALLING FOR A STANDARD: WHY COURTS SHOULD APPLY A NEW BALANCING TEST IN CELL PHONE SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST Drew Liming* You have just been stopped for driving with a revoked license. A police officer
More informationAGENDA ELECTRONIC ADVANCES AND THE LAW. Tangipahoa Case Study and Cell Phone Basics. The U.S. Supreme Court and Cell Phone Searches.
Leland Corky Dwight, Investigator Louisiana State Police ELECTRONIC ADVANCES AND THE LAW J. J. Williams, Jr., Staff Attorney Louisiana District Attorneys Association JJ@LDAA.ORG AGENDA Tangipahoa Case
More informationA MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT?
A MURDER SCENE EXCEPTION TO THE 4TH AMENDMENT WARRANT REQUIREMENT? Bryan R. Lemons Senior Legal Instructor It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process,
More informationContaining Cell Phones? Restoring the Balance Between Privacy and Government Interests in Fourth Amendment Cell Phone Searches and Seizures
Containing Cell Phones? Restoring the Balance Between Privacy and Government Interests in Fourth Amendment Cell Phone Searches and Seizures Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience.
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6426.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SMITH, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6426.] Search and seizure Search incident
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 11-1792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. BRIMA WURIE, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:14-cr-00295-SRN-JSM Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Case No. 14-cr-295 (SRN/JSM) Plaintiff, v. Martel Javell Einfeldt,
More informationHOW DOES A CRIMINAL CASE GET DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL? Many criminal cases are resolved without a trial. Some with straight forward dismissals.
HOW DOES A CRIMINAL CASE GET DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL? Many criminal cases are resolved without a trial. Some with straight forward dismissals. In some cases the prosecution can be misinformed by the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 1:07-cr-00014-BLW Document 24 Filed 09/07/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Case No. CR-07-14-S-BLW Plaintiff, ) ) MEMORANDUM
More informationMASSACHUSETTS WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES CASE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT
MASSACHUSETTS WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES CASE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT The Fourth Amendment Guarantees a Right to Privacy and Protects Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures; If Your Fourth
More informationUnited States v. Flores-Lopez: Protecting Privacy Rights in Cell Phone Searches Incident to Arrest
United States v. Flores-Lopez: Protecting Privacy Rights in Cell Phone Searches Incident to Arrest I. INTRODUCTION The Founders carefully drafted the Fourth Amendment to provide protection for persons,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 13-107(DSD/FLN) This matter is before the court upon the objection by
United States of America, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No. 13-107(DSD/FLN) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Michael Duane Hoffman, This matter is before the court upon the objection by
More informationJoshua Eames* People v. Diaz, 244 P.3d 501, 502 (Cal. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 94 (2011).
Case Note CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Can You Hear Me Now? : Warrantless Cell Phone Searches and the Fourth Amendment; People v. Diaz, 244 P.3d 501 (Cal. 2011) Joshua Eames* Introduction On April 25, 2007, Gregory
More informationMINNESOTA S DWI IMPLIED CONSENT LAW: IS IT REALLY CONSENT?
MINNESOTA S DWI IMPLIED CONSENT LAW: IS IT REALLY CONSENT? By: Kevin DeVore, Sharon Osborn, and Chuck Ramsay From the August 28, 2007 Edition of the Hennepin Lawyer Magazine The Constitution is not an
More informationAftermath of Arizona v Gant
Aftermath of Arizona v Gant Mark M. Neil Senior Attorney National Traffic Law Center National District Attorneys Association A Little History - Facts of Gant 99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 330 Alexandria,
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of
More informationAn Unreasonable Expectation? Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones
BYU Law Review Volume 2013 Issue 5 Article 7 2-28-2014 An Unreasonable Expectation? Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones Michael V. Hinckley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview
More informationFLORIDA v. THOMAS. certiorari to the supreme court of florida
774 OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus FLORIDA v. THOMAS certiorari to the supreme court of florida No. 00 391. Argued April 25, 2001 Decided June 4, 2001 While officers were investigating marijuana sales and
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer
More informationTo Serve and Protect: Thornton v. United States and the Newly Anemic Fourth Amendment
To Serve and Protect: Thornton v. United States and the Newly Anemic Fourth Amendment In Thornton v. United States,' the United States Supreme Court further weakened the protection afforded by the Fourth
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ORLANDO INGRAM, No. 460, 2014 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in v. and for Kent County STATE OF DELAWARE,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 02-1019 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, v. RODNEY JOSEPH GANT, On Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Court of Appeals Division Two Petitioner, Respondent. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 04-KK-0273 STATE OF LOUISIANA SEAN STRANGE, TALBERT PORTER. On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal
05/14/04 See News Release 043 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 04-KK-0273 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SEAN STRANGE, TALBERT PORTER On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit
More informationDefendant brought a Motion to Suppress the DNA Testing Results or in the alternative,
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ` DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff, vs. JIMMIE DALE JACKSON, File No: 04085182 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant. Defendant
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1959 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Andre
More informationon petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of puerto rico
OCTOBER TERM, 1992 147 Syllabus EL VOCERO de PUERTO RICO et al. v. PUERTO RICO et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of puerto rico No. 92 949. Decided May 17, 1993 Puerto Rico
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37. Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. AARON BRANDON LINGARD Appellant No. 307 WDA 2014 Appeal from the
More informationCase Western Reserve. Law Review. Volume 63 Spring 2013 Issue 3
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 63 Spring 2013 Issue 3 Be Reasonable! Limit Warrantless Smart Phone Searches to Gant s Justification for Searches Incident to Arrest Sara M. Corradi Comment Be Reasonable!
More informationOPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. Opn. No. 2000-1
Page 1 of 6 Opn. No. 2000-1 US CONST, FOURTH AMEND; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 1.20, 140.10, 140.25, 140.30; PENAL LAW 10.00; 8 USC, CH 12, 1252c, 1253(c), 1254(a)(1), 1255a, 1324(a) and (c), 1325(b). New
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
No. 11 3107 Case: 11-3107 Document: 28 Filed: 05/02/2012 Pages: 5 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
More informationFederal Criminal Court
No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Amendment V. Defendant may not be compelled
More informationAugust Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
AUGUST 15, 2014 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE August Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationTHE NOT A SEARCH GAME
THE NOT A SEARCH GAME JOHN F. STINNEFORD * The privacy versus security discussion is not just about the Fourth Amendment it involves policy considerations as well. The Fourth Amendment concerns frame the
More informationIt s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer
It s official: Good-faith exception part of state law By PAUL THARP, Staff Writer paul.tharp@nc.lawyersweekly.com As Rep. Paul Stam sees it an injustice to the people of North Carolina has been righted
More informationThe District Court suppressed the evidence. The Missouri appellate court agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed the evidence should be suppressed.
MEMO DATE: April 18, 2013 FROM: J.H.B. Wilson, General Counsel RE: McNeely v. Missouri (SCOTUS, 2013) This decision was released April 17, 2013. An abridged version of the Court s Syllabus can be found
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Dent, 2011-Ohio-1235.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94823 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. HAROLD DENT DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
More informationSTATE OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. February 24, 2014. Opinion No. 14-21 QUESTIONS
STATE OF TENNESSEE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Searches and Arrests on School Property February 24, 2014 Opinion No. 14-21 QUESTIONS 1. Do public school students have any expectation of privacy in their
More informationASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair. AB 539 (Levine) As Introduced February 23, 2015
AB 539 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015 Counsel: Sandra Uribe ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Bill Quirk, Chair AB 539 (Levine) As Introduced February 23, 2015 SUMMARY: Authorizes the issuance
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR CELL TOWER RECORDS MAGISTRATE NO. H-15-136M UNDER 18 U.S.C. 2703(D) OPINION On February 10, 2015
More informationDecided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1296. Shawn Michael O'Connell, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1296 Shawn Michael O'Connell, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed January 12, 2015 Affirmed Bjorkman, Judge Hennepin County District
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NARANJIBHAI PATEL and RAMILABEN PATEL, No. 08-56567 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cv-01571- DSF-AJW CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANNY TEAGUE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-10276 D.C. No. 1:05-cr-00495- LJO-1 OPINION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDRES LOPEZ-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellee. No. 11-50551 D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01507-JLS-1 OPINION
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-2000 Tylor John Neuman, petitioner, Respondent,
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHELLE BOWERS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2D08-3251 STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 13-132 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID LEON RILEY, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 97-0695 Complete Title of Case: Petition for Review Filed STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. THEODORE A. QUARTANA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationNewsletter Editor: Professor Louis Roy. September 2014, Volume 1
September 2014, Volume 1 Newsletter Editor: Professor Louis Roy The instructors and staff of Southern Arkansas University Behavioral and Social Science Department and the Criminal Justice program would
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEORGE DANIEL SNOW, Defendant-Appellant.
FILED: December, 0 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEORGE DANIEL SNOW, Defendant-Appellant. Jackson County Circuit Court 01FE A Patricia Crain,
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-13-00109-CR. From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O P I N I O N
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00109-CR MICHAEL ANTHONY MCGRUDER, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11-05822-CRF-85 O
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More informationThe U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power.
CHAPTER Policing: Legal Aspects Changing Legal Climate The U.S. Constitution is designed to protect citizens against abuses of police power. Changing Legal Climate 1960 s The U.S. Supreme Court clarified
More informationCONDUCT A NEBRASKA SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF YOUR HOME?
WHEN CAN THE POLICE CONDUCT A NEBRASKA SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF YOUR HOME? A man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion. Petersen Criminal Defense Law Regardless
More informationAn appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634
More informationHow To Stop A Drunk Driver
Prado Navarette Et Al. v. California, 572 U.S. (April 22, 2014) An Analysis Brandon Hughes Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor Alabama Office of Prosecution Services alabamaduiprosecution.com A question
More informationLegal Update. Safe Schools, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment
Legal Update Safe Schools, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment Copyright 2009 by NASRO. Reprinted with permission. By Bernard James Professor of Law Pepperdine University bjames@pepperdine.edu Reform
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1408 United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Aaron Jay
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
Case: 15-12302 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-13 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Sin Santo
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued June 8, 2016 Decided July 5, 2016
More informationPolice Interaction: On and Off Campus. Last Updated January 2010
YOUTH RIGHTS MANUAL Youth Rights Manual Police Interaction: On and Off Campus Last Updated January 2010 ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 8306 HOUSTON, TX 77288 T/ 713.942.8146 F/ 713.942.8966 WWW.ACLUTX.ORG
More informationThis presentation focuses on how to write Case Briefs of Legal Opinions.
Criminal Law Statues (written by Legislature) Offense Reports (written by Police) Briefs, Motions, etc. (written by Lawyers) Opinions (written by Judges) Case Briefs (Students, Lawyers) This presentation
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: v. Case No. 2009CF001837. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2009CF001837 Willie Pierce, Defendant. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Now comes the above-named
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 10-4381
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC SMITH, a/k/a Capone, a/k/a Pone, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 9, 2013 Decided March
More informationDecided: March 27, 2015. S14A1625. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE. Following a bench trial, John Cletus Williams was convicted of driving
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 27, 2015 S14A1625. WILLIAMS v. THE STATE. HINES, Presiding Justice. Following a bench trial, John Cletus Williams was convicted of driving under the influence
More informationCase 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
More informationFuture Proof Your ediscovery Practices
FEBRUARY 3 5, 2015 / THE HILTON NEW YORK Future Proof Your ediscovery Practices Plenary Session February 4, 2015 Patrick Collins, Partner, Perkins Coie Bruce Hartley, Vice President, Celerity Consulting
More informationF I L E D February 1, 2013
Case: 11-31140 Document: 00512132067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 1, 2013 UNITED
More informationSupreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) No. SC91850 Appellant, ) ) vs. ) ) TYLER G. MCNEELY ) ) Respondent. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY The Honorable Benjamin
More informationCase 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
More information2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U. No. 1-13-3050 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 133050-U FIFTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-13-3050 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ALBERT J. BOUTIN, III. Argued: October 14, 2015 Opinion Issued: March 8, 2016
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationCase 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 104 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 104 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 06-2026-CM
More informationMarianna Brown Bettman *
IDENTICAL CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE: WHAT IS A STATE COURT TO DO? THE OHIO CASE OF STATE V. ROBINETTE by Marianna Brown Bettman * We are in the era of rediscovery of state constitutional law. In Ohio, there
More informationSTATE OF MAINE WADE R. HOOVER. [ 1] Wade R. Hoover appeals from an order of the trial court (Murphy, J.)
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2015 ME 109 Docket: Ken-14-362 Argued: June 16, 2015 Decided: August 11, 2015 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Filed 11/12/96 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUDITH NELL IVERSON, No. 95-4185 (D.C. No. 95-CR-46) (D. Utah) Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND
More informationNo. 1-13-3663 2015 IL App (1st) 133663-U IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). No. 1-13-3663 2015 IL App (1st)
More informationWORLD REPORT >>> DATA PROTECTION
reau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com WORLD DATA PROTECTION REPORT >>> News and analysis of data protection developments around the world. For the latest updates, visit www.bna.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)
More informationCase 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-mj-00228-JMF Document 11 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ) SEARCH OF INFORMATION ) ASSOCIATED WITH ) Magistrate Case
More informationNo. 11-2920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WILLIAM HEISER, Appellant
JORDAN, Circuit Judge. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 11-2920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM HEISER, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06. No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0675n.06 No. 14-6537 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERELL BUFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
More information# # # # # Issue and Decision of the United States Supreme Court
Article for Minnesota Chiefs of Police Magazine: New Legal Requirements for GPS Tracking Devices By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel February, 2012 # # # # # Issue and Decision of the United
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Moore CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 12-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL TIMOTHY MALONEY, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
More informationCHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS
CHALLENGING CRIMINAL HISTORY CALCULATIONS I. Challenging Predicates for Career Offender! The Basic Rule for Career Offender 4B1.1 A defendant is a career offender if: 1. The defendant is at least 18 years
More informationUnited States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1
United States vs. McNeely: Analysis and Implications for DWI Enforcement in Minnesota 1 By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel 2 1) McNeely Background and Supreme Court Holding On April 17, 2013,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationA chart summarizing the main enforcement provisions of the new law is included in this order as Attachment A.
SPECIAL ORDER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Title Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Initiative of 2014 (Initiative 71) Number SO-15-07 Effective Date February 26, 2015
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JOE R. ALVARADO, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
More information