Author: blueadmin

Catching Flies with Honey

Catching Flies with Honey

United States v. Bernard, 4thCIR 24JUN2019 – In this case Bruce-Alan Barnard analyzes a case where consent is a key part of extending a traffic stop into an investigative detention and Fifth Amendment Miranda issues are created under the “functional equivalent of questioning.”

Chalk it up as a SEARCH!

Chalk it up as a SEARCH!

Taylor v. City of Saginaw, Sixth Circuit, 11APR2019

In this episode, Bruce discusses the case Taylor v. City of Saginaw where the Sixth Circuit held that merely touching a tire to put chalk on it to enforce parking laws is a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant or a Judicially Recognized Exception (JRE).  This is the second case in as many months where the courts have  ruled physical touches of effects are Fourth Amendment searches. Are the floodgates opening on Jones searches?

When is a person seized?

When is a person seized?

United States v. Gaines, 10th Cir. 12MAR2019

In this case, Bruce-Alan Barnard explores two key parts of Search and Seizure Law:

  1. What constitutes a “seizure” of a person for Fourth Amendment purposes?
  2. When does the Attenuation Doctrine apply after a Fourth Amendment violation to keep evidence from being suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule?

There is a companion video available on the LEA ONE Vimeo channel. Check www.lea.one for more details.

He poked the tire!

He poked the tire!

United States v. Richmond   5th Cir. February 8, 2019

In the first Broadcast BLUE podcast of the 2019 season, retired FLETC Senior Legal Instructor Bruce-Alan Barnard summarizes and analyzes the case US v Richmond. This is a significant decision because it applies the definition of a search established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Jones (Jan 2012) to an automobile on the side of a highway.

US v Aiken 1st Cir (18DEC2017)

US v Aiken 1st Cir (18DEC2017)

In this episode of Broadcast Blue, Bruce-Alan Barnard discusses the Fourth Amendment issues presented in United States v. Aiken. In this case, the First Circuit applies a three-prong test to determine if the guest of a guest in a motel room has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the motel room.

Carpenter v. United States – Special Supreme Court Edition

Carpenter v. United States – Special Supreme Court Edition

Carpenter v United States – Special Supreme Court Edition. The US Supreme Court holds that the Third-Party Doctrine does not apply to Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) and it may be reasonable to expect privacy in location information held by third-party cellphone service providers.