On Point: A. Expectation of privacy

Byrd v. United States, USSC No. 2016-1371, cert granted 9/28/17; 3rd Circuit’s opinion; docket; SCOTUSblog page
Question presented:

A police officer may not conduct a suspicionless and warrantless search of a car if the driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car–i.e., an expectation of privacy that society accepts as reasonable. Does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.

Question presented:

Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

You’ve no doubt heard about digital devices from outfits like Nest or Amazon Echo or Google Home that allow you remotely to control your thermostat or your lights and blinds or take video of the goings-on in your yard or on your porch. Perhaps you’ve also heard about the case in Arkansas in which the prosecution was seeking audio from the defendant’s Amazon Echo to determine if it contained evidence about his culpability for a murder.

State v. Steven T. Delap, 2016AP2196-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 7/18/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 64; case activity (including briefs)

Police tried to arrest Delap outside his home on warrants for fleeing from a couple of traffic stops, but when they approached and said “stop, police,” Delap fled into his home. The police followed and arrested him inside. (¶¶3-6). Delap’s challenge to his arrest is no more successful than his attempt to flee.

State v. Steven J. Schaefer, 2015AP2555-CR, District 3, 11/1/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schaefer challenged evidence seized after he was arrested outside his home. He argued the arresting officer entered the curtilage of his home without a warrant. The court of appeals holds the area was not curtilage under the four-factor test established by United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

State v. Andrew S. Sato, 2015AP1815-CR, 10/18/2016, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police investigating an armed robbery the previous evening learned their suspect was at home in his apartment. One officer initiated a “knock and talk,” banging on the front door of the apartment and yelling for five to ten minutes while another officer positioned himself outside near the apartment’s bedroom window. After that second officer heard loud noises, the first kicked in the door and arrested Sato. The officers then went and got a search warrant for the apartment, which turned up evidence of the crime.

United States v. Frank Caira, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1003, 2016 WL 4376472, 8/17/16

During a drug investigation the government issued subpoenas to two internet service providers—Microsoft, the owner of Hotmail, and Comcast the owner of an Internet Protocol address associated with the Hotmail address being investigated. The subpoenas provided information that led investigators to Caira. (Slip op. at 2-4). His claim that the subpoenas amounted to unreasonable warrantless searches is rejected because voluntarily sharing the information with the internet providers meant Caira had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information.

So held the 10th Circuit in U.S. v. Ackerman last week.  The case “considers how the Fourth Amendment applies to a child pornography detection system set up by Internet service providers and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).” In a post “for serious 4th Amendment nerds” Orin Kerr pokes holes in the court’s analysis and discusses the deepening circuit split over this issue.

The Volokh Conspiracy sums up this case beautifully: “Nebraska drug doggie alerts on vehicle. Officers find no drugs but do find a duffel bag with many credit cards, debit cards, and gift cards. Eighth Circuit (over a dissent): No Fourth Amendment violation to scan the cards’ magnetic stripes (which revealed them to be counterfeit).” Read the decision here or the story here.

United States v. Eugene A. Sweeney, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3785, 5/9/16

The police officers’ search of the basement of the apartment building where an armed robbery suspect lived was neither a trespass nor an invasion of the apartment dwellers’ curtilage. Thus, the gun found during the search was lawfully seized and not subject to suppression.