I agree with MJ Numbers's bottom line: You can't use the All Writs Act independently. The whole point of the AWA is to ensure the enforcement of some other judicial order. No other order means no AWA order. So that result is right, I think.
With that said, I don't think MJ Numbers is right to focus on whether or when drone use is a search. It doesn't matter at this stage: It has no impact on whether an AWA order can issue. Either way, the AWA order can't issue.
If you're one of the nerds actually reading this thread, you may be wondering: Why is the government applying for this order? If they have PC, why not just get a warrant? Why try to get a non-warrant AWA order based on PC?
I don't know for sure, but here's my guess. They probably don't want to get a warrant because, once they do, courts tend to assume that a search occurred. DOJ wants to do things that aren't a search under current law, so they don't want to encourage courts to move the line.
Why get an AWA order, though? Two possible reasons. First, if courts later do move the line and say the conduct is now a search, DOJ would have post-Carpenter caselaw that the AWA order was, for 4A purposes, a warrant. (This happened w/post-Carp 2703(d) orders when PC existed)
Second, even if courts won't treat the AWA order as a warrant, they might look favorably on it under the good faith exception. DOJ can say, "this was murky, so we brought this to a judge, and we explained what we wanted to do, & the MJ authorized it." Good optics under the GFE.
I think MJ Numbers was right as to the bottom line, though. DOJ can't get an AWA order somehow blessing the drone use. They either need to rely on existing caselaw (like Riley, Ciraolo, Dow Chemical, etc), and go without a warrant, or get a warrant just in case. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1948, Dean William Prosser writes about the faculty hiring process. (In those days, at least at Berkeley, it was just the Dean's choice.) jle.aals.org/cgi/viewconten…
I'm reminded of what my late colleague Jack McNulty told me of Prosser's hiring process in the late 50s. According to Jack, Prosser visited Yale, and Dean Rostow rounded up a few 3Ls to speak with Prosser. Jack was one. After a short conversation, Prosser offered Jack a job.
Jack said no! He wanted to clerk and practice for a few years first. But he was convinced he only got the offer because he was the only 3L wearing a jacket and tie when Rostow grabbed him to speak with Prosser. (There hadn't been any warning or context for the interview.)
8th Cir.: It's not inherently a violation of the 4th Am to have the St. Louis system of "wanted" notices, in which one officer flags suspects for arrest by others. But watch out, reliance on "wanted" doesn't insulate you from personal liability. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/11/2…#N
If this topic rings a bell for regular readers, I had a long thread about the briefs and arguments back in April.
As I understand the opinion, the court is saying that you always judge arrests by probable cause, so having one officer say he has PC (by issuing a "wanted") doesn't fundamentally change that: It's neither always PC, nor never PC.
This is going to be reversed by the CA2, as the law all goes the other way, but Judge Korman holds that executing a warrant at 6am, with guns drawn, after waiting 30 seconds after announcing, is "revolting," violates the 4A, and requires suppression. drive.google.com/file/d/1xLFoy4…#N
Korman ends up coming up with a way that only part of the evidence is suppressed. (Is that to complicate certification under 18 USC 3731? So that there's a plea? Not sure. Maybe I am being too cynical, but this opinion is really something.)
I've said it before, but I will say it again: I am not voting for Hunter Biden for President. He is not qualified, either professionally or personally. #neverhunterbiden
I know a lot of readers don't care about Hunter's problems, and say, hey, Hunter drives the GOP insane, which makes him awesome. But I disagree. The GOP is right to say Hunter is not qualified to be President. The country must come first.
I see I'm being ratioed for this, but let me dig in. Yes, I am not only saying you shouldn't vote for Hunter in the primary. You should not for him *even if he's your party's nominee.*
TIRE-CHALKING JURISPRUDENCE UPDATE: CA9 rules 2-1 that tire chalking does not violate the 4A. Assuming it's a search, it falls within the special needs/administrative search exception. (Per Bress, w/ Bumatay dissenting). #N
First, a reminder: This twitter feed is dedicated to satisfying all of your tire-chalking jurisprudence needs. For prior tweets on the latest in tire-chalking and the 4th Amendment, see here: twitter.com/search?q=tire-…
Ok, on to the opinion. The CA9 argues that, even if tire-chalking is a search, it's okay under the special needs/admin search doctrine. A few key sections:
The odds that any culture wars dispute will evolve into claims about different understandings of the facts, with at least one side claiming complete outrage that the other side holds its view even though they obviously know their claims of the facts are false, are quite high.
There are so many examples that it’s hard to choose, but earlier today I was reading Judge Ho’s essay on the Yale ban, and it has this passage about @ishapiro that seems as good an example as any.
Ilya’s tweets were read dramatically differently on the two sides. As interpreted by one side, he was saying race is irrelevant; as interpreted by the other, he was saying race is everything. Neither side thought the other side genuinely believed its interpretation.