Notable: D.Ariz reaches a question long speculated about but, to my knowledge, never before reached: If a dog sniff for drugs is not a search under Caballes, does that allow searches for CSAM, too? Held: Yes, no search, Caballes applies.
I confess I find this case a bit odd. First, procedurally, it's a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 case alleging ineffective assistance for failure to raise a 4A issue. But as best I recall, the 4A claim has been tried elsewhere and hasn't worked, so I don't see how it's in IAC territory.
2nd, substantively, the claim is that Caballes applies to NCMEC opening a file to confirm it's CSAM. But I don't see how that's a Caballes issue. When NCMEC opens a file, it's either CSAM *or it's a private file that isn't CSAM.
That doesn't implicate Caballes/Jacobsen, as that line of caselaw is about technological tools that can only say an item is or is not contraband. Actually opening a file reveals more, it shows the file.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There should be a name, in the law, for a lower court interpretation of a SCOTUS majority opinion that is based largely on the dissent's characterization of the reach of that opinion. (A chicken little? "Well, the dissent said the sky was falling, so that must be true.")
Thinking of this when reading interpretations of MD v King, which on its face was limited to "serious offenses." Scalia, dissenting, warned that lower courts would say it applies to all offenses. And then lower cts get the issue they say things like US v Buller, 2018 WL 317820:
It's actually an interesting question of dissent strategy. Ex ante, when you're trying to pick off a vote, you want to say the sky is falling. But if you can't pick off a vote, then ex post you'd want to say the maj op is very narrow. Strategic move is to rewrite it midway. :)
I recently completed 6 days of jury service, serving as a juror in a criminal case. Fascinating experience. Parts very impressive, and parts troubling. Not sure how/whether to write about it in any detail, though, as the case is still pending: Ended in a mistrial w/ a hung jury.
FWIW, yes, I was very surprised I made it on the jury. I've always wanted to serve on a jury. But I figured I had enough experience to make me seem suspect to both sides. Would the defense want a former prosecutor on? Would the prosecution want a Berkeley law professor?
Anyway, totally fascinating to finally see the criminal trial process from the jury side. And on the substance, there were actually a few super interesting 1L crim law issues raised by the case. At the very least, my future Crim Law students will be hearing about it.
LIKE A LAW SCHOOL EXAM HYPO: If one officer orders a suspect out of car and opens the door to help him out, and a 2nd officer then peers in via the open door and sees drugs, has a 4A search occurred? Ohio SCT rules, 4-2, that there was no search.. supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…#N
The majority treats the two officers as separate. The first officer didn't conduct a search because, although he opened the door, he lacked the intent to obtain info. The second officer had the intent, but no act. Treating each separately, no officer committed a search.
The dissent says you can't add a subjective intent test to the 1st officer's act, and that it was objectively a search — and then (if I am reading it correctly) suggests perhaps you should look at the conduct of the officers together, not individually.
When a person consents to a computer search, the government creates an image copy of the computer to search, and the person withdraws consent before the image is searched, the image can't be searched based on consent, Md. Ct. Special Appeals holds.
🧵courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/…#N
I had a short thread on this then-pending case, and the legal it raised, back in June.
Critics of the third-party doctrine often claim the rule was invented in the 1970s. But that's just wrong. The doctrine was adopted by the very first Supreme Court case on the 4th Amendment—in 1878.
The first significant Supreme Court case on the 4th Amendment is usually thought to be Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878). tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
Jackson was a habeas case filed by a guy who had been convicted of violating a federal criminal law, as amended in 1876, that prohibited sending lottery materials through the postal mail.
Pretend fraud justifies terminating all law, says current front-runner for GOP Presidential nomination. (And you know it only keeps going downhill from here; as always, there is no bottom.)