Uncategorized

On September 24, 2019, shortly after witnessing Manley Johnson leave Appellant Maurice Bailey’s home, Kannapolis, North Carolina police officer Jeremy Page discovered 0.1 grams of cocaine base during a search of Johnson’s vehicle. Officer Page then confronted Bailey about the cocaine sale and instructed him to turn over any drugs still in his possession. In return, Officer Page assured Bailey that he was “going to take it and ․ leave,” and everything would still be “squared away.” J.A. 112. As he later testified, Officer Page expected that Bailey would assist him in future investigations. Prompted by Officer Page’s offer, Bailey handed over 0.7 grams of cocaine base.

In the following weeks, Bailey helped Officer Page locate and arrest an individual for whom the police had an outstanding warrant but did not otherwise aid in Officer Page’s investigations. Then, on November 7, 2019, Officer Page obtained two warrants for Bailey’s arrest: one for the 0.1 grams Bailey sold to Johnson on September 24, and one for the 0.7 grams Bailey turned over that same day. In the process of executing those warrants, Kannapolis police discovered 17.8 grams of cocaine base on Bailey’s person, which led to Bailey’s prosecution for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

Bailey unsuccessfully moved to suppress the 17.8 grams of cocaine and was convicted of the charge. On appeal, Bailey argues that the district court should have granted his suppression motion because his arrest constituted a breach of Officer Page’s September 24 promise that all would be “squared away.” Because the district court failed to make the factual findings necessary to resolve this argument, we vacate its decision denying Bailey’s motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

____________________
In all such contexts, therefore, where an individual fulfills his obligations under the agreement, “settled notions of fundamental fairness” may require the government “to uphold its end of the bargain,” too. Carrillo, 709 F.2d at 37. To hold otherwise would rubberstamp a police practice that stands to undermine “the honor of the government” and “public confidence in the fair administration of justice.” Carter, 454 F.2d at 428.
__________________

Full case here: UNITED STATES v. BAILEY (2023), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-4th-circuit/114625754.html

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

In February 1980, petitioner Doggett was indicted on federal drug charges, but he left the country before the Drug Enforcement Agency could secure his arrest. The DEA knew that he was later imprisoned in Panama, but after requesting that he be expelled back to the United States, never followed up on his status. Once the DEA discovered that he had left Panama for Colombia, it made no further attempt to locate him. Thus, it was unaware that he reentered this country in 1982 and subsequently married, earned a college degree, found steady employment, lived openly under his own name, and stayed within the law. The Marshal’s Service eventually located him during a simple credit check on individuals with outstanding warrants. He was arrested in September 1988, 81/2 years after his indictment. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Government’s failure to prosecute him earlier violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, but the District Court denied the motion, and he entered a conditional guilty plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The delay between Doggett’s indictment and arrest violated his right to a speedy trial. His claim meets the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 530, criteria for evaluating speedy trial claims. First, the extraordinary 8 1/2-year lag between his indictment and arrest clearly suffices to trigger the speedy trial enquiry. Second, the Government was to blame for the delay. The District Court’s finding that the Government was negligent in pursuing Doggett should be viewed with considerable deference, and neither the Government nor the record provides any reason to reject that finding. Third, Doggett asserted in due course his right to a speedy trial. The courts below found that he did not know of his indictment before his arrest, and, in the factual basis supporting his guilty plea, the Government essentially conceded this point. Finally, the negligent delay between Doggett’s indictment and arrest presumptively prejudiced his ability to prepare an adequate defense. The Government errs in arguing that the Speedy Trial Clause does not significantly protect a defendant’s interest in fair adjudication. United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307, 320-323; United States v. MacDonald, 456 U. S. 1, 8; United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U. S. 302, 312, distinguished. Nor does Doggett’s failure to cite any specifically demonstrable prejudice doom his claim, since excessive delay can compromise a trial’s reliability in unidentifiable ways. Presumptive prejudice is part of the mix of relevant Barker factors and increases in importance with the length of the delay. Here, the Government’s egregious persistence in failing to prosecute Doggett is sufficient to warrant granting relief. The negligence caused delay six times as long as that generally deemed sufficient to trigger judicial review, and the presumption of prejudice is neither extenuated, as by Doggett’s acquiescence, nor persuasively rebutted. Pp.651-658.

Read the full case here: Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/647/case.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?

San Diego Criminal Defense | LAWSTACHE MERCH

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[W]arrantless searches are typically unreasonable where a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing.” Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2221 (2018) (quotation omitted).

The border search exception is a “longstanding, historically recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general principle that a warrant be obtained” for a search. Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 621. “[T]he border-search exception allows officers to conduct ‘routine inspections and searches of individuals or conveyances seeking to cross . . . borders’ without any particularized suspicion of wrongdoing.” United States v. Aguilar, 973 F.3d 445, 449 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 619) (emphasis added). Moreover, even “[s]o-called ‘nonroutine’ searches need only reasonable suspicion, not the higher threshold of probable cause.” United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2018). “For border searches both routine and not, no case has required a warrant.” Id

The border search exception reflects “the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country.” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616. “The Government’s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border” and has been recognized “since the beginning of our Government.” United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152–53 (2004). “Historically such broad powers have been necessary to prevent smuggling and to prevent prohibited articles from entry.” Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 619.

Accordingly, when it comes to manual cell phone searches at the border, our sister circuits have uniformly held that Riley does not require either a warrant or reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Xiang, 67 F.4th 895, 900 (8th Cir. 2023) (“No Circuit has held that the government must obtain a warrant to conduct a routine border search of electronic devices.”); Alasaad v. Mayorkas, 988 F.3d 8, 18–19 (1st Cir. 2021) (“We . . . agree with the holdings of the Ninth and Eleventh circuits that basic border searches are routine searches and need not be supported by reasonable suspicion.”); United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002, 1016 (9th Cir. 2019) (“manual searches of cell phones at the border are reasonable without individualized suspicion”).

Read the full case here: USA v. Castillo, No. 21-50406 (5th Cir. 2023), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-50406/21-50406-2023-06-19.html

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Border Patrol agents watched a man climb over the Mexico-United States border fence and followed him as he took a taxi to Heriberto Perea-Rey’s home. An agent watched the suspected undocumented alien walk through the gated entrance to the home and knock on the front door. The agent followed him through the front yard, around the side of the house and into the carport. He found the suspect there, standing with Perea-Rey in front of a side door entrance to the home, and detained both men until other agents arrived. Perea-Rey refused to allow the agents to enter his house. Forgetting for a moment that the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that the government obtain a warrant before it conducts a search or seizure, particularly of persons in their homes, the agents, pointing their guns at the home, ordered everyone outside. The individuals who emerged were later found to be undocumented aliens.

Indicted for harboring the aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324, Perea-Rey moved to suppress evidence of the aliens as the fruit of a warrantless search and seizure. Though the district court found that the agents entered the curtilage of Perea-Rey’s home and that there were no exigent circumstances that might justify the failure to obtain a warrant, the court denied the motion. Perea-Rey entered a conditional guilty plea and filed this appeal. Because the agents physically occupied the curtilage of Perea-Rey’s home without obtaining a warrant, and no exceptions to the warrant requirement otherwise justified the search or seizure, we reverse Perea-Rey’s conviction and remand.
____
Where the government “physically occupie[s] private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” that is a “`search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Jones, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 945, 949, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). “[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Because the curtilage is part of the home, searches and seizures in the curtilage without a warrant are also presumptively unreasonable. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984).

Although a warrant is not required to observe readily visible items within the curtilage, and “officers [need not] shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares,” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), a warrant is required to enter the home.

Full case here: US v. Perea-Rey, 680 F. 3d 1179 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2012, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3328995699668028305&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

The issue before this court is whether Captain Walsh was justified in making entry into the Defendant’s residence without first obtaining a search warrant. The United States Supreme Court has held that a warrant is not required to enter a person’s home when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless [entry] is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). “One exigency obviating the requirement of a warrant is the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). Under this “emergency aid” exception, “officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Id. Officers do not need “ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the emergency aid exception[.]” Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

…

It is worth noting that all cases where a court has found that an exigent circumstance existed appear to share two common factors. First, in all of the cases in which courts found exigency, officers observed events obviously occurring within the residence or building. For example, cries for help, screams, loud noises, or an observation of a struggle or fight within the structure by looking through a window. Second, courts have found exigent circumstances exist when officers observed events or evidence leading directly to a structure. For example, a blood trail leading to a closed door.

There was no evidence leading directly into the home, such as a trail of blood, and there were no noises, voices or screams leading officers to believe someone inside may be in immediate distress or in need of protection. Here, nothing at the accident scene caused Captain Walsh to believe that the driver was seriously injured. By the time Captain Walsh arrived at the residence, the Defendant had already managed to walk back to his house and fall asleep in his bedroom upstairs. Captain Walsh did not see or hear anything to cause one to think that someone was in the home, much less that someone was in need of immediate assistance.

Full case here: State v. Gibson, No. M2012-02363-CCA-R3-CD, 12 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2013), https://casetext.com/case/state-v-gibson-395

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

“To invoke the Fourth Amendment protections, a person must show that [they] had a legitimate expectation of privacy.” U.S. v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 978 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)). An expectation of privacy is legitimate if it is one that society accepts as objectively reasonable. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 95-96 (1990); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 3940 (1988).

“The Fourth Amendment shields not only actual owners, but also anyone with sufficient possessory rights over the property searched.” Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] defendant who lacks an ownership interest may still have standing to challenge a search, upon a showing of ‘joint control’ or ‘common authority’ over the property searched.” United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “Common authority rests ‘on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes.’” Id. For example, “a defendant may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in another’s car if the defendant is in possession of the car, has the permission of the owner, holds a key to the car, and has the right and ability to exclude others, except the owner, from the car.” Id. at 1198 (9th Cir. 2006).
…
Rubin does not challenge the validity of the search warrant but rather challenges the continued placement and monitoring of the GPS tracking device as unreasonable after law enforcement became aware that Morgan was no longer driving the white pickup. (ECF No. 26 at 5-6, 10-11.) The issue here is essentially whether the continued GPS tracking was conducted within the scope of the warrant. “If the scope of [a] search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant . . ., the [search and any] subsequent seizure [are] unconstitutional without more.” Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 140 (1990). “Whether a search exceeds the scope of a search warrant is an issue [courts] determine through an objective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the warrant, the contents of the search warrant, and the circumstances of the search.” United States v. Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064, 1071 (9th Cir.), opinion amended andsuperseded on other grounds, 298 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2002); see, e.g., United States v. Hurd, 499 F.3d 963, 966-69 (9th Cir. 2007) (application of the Hitchcock test)).
…
An objective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the warrant does not support the conclusion that the issuing judge authorized the GPS tracking of the white pickup while driven exclusively by someone other than Morgan-such as Rubin.

Full case: United States v. Rubin, 3:22-cr-00012-MMD-CSD-1, 5 (D. Nev. Apr. 21, 2023), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rubin-38

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

On August 26, 2020, at approximately 2:32 AM, Odom drove past two California Highway Patrol officers at 92 miles per hour, in violation of California law. ECF No. 1 at 5. The officers followed the vehicle and instructed Odom to stop, roll down the windows, and turn off the car. He complied immediately. Dashcam 1:04-1:12. After the car stopped, Officer Guajardo approached the passenger-side window and Officer Lee approached the driver’s side. Id. at 1:32-1:42. Officer Guajardo told Odom that he was speeding and asked for his license, insurance, and registration. ECF No. 1 at 5. Odom explained that he did not have any of those items, and his license was suspended, but provided Officer Guajardo with a California Identification card. Id. According to Officer Guajardo, Odom “was shifting and moving around in the vehicle” and “appeared nervous.” ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 5. Odom explained that the car belonged to his sister. Dashcam 2:22. A few seconds later, Officer Guajardo asked “How far are you from home?” Id. at 2:19, and Odom replied that it was “literally right up the street.” Id. at 2:21. When asked whether he was on probation or parole, Odom said he was not. ECF No. 39-1 ¶ 5.

The officers then conducted a DMV records check and a Criminal Records Information Management System (CRIM) check. The parties dispute whether Officer Guajardo ran both checks himself or whether he requested help from dispatch. Based on the DMV records check, Officer Guajardo learned that Odom’s license was withheld for failure to appear. From the CRIMS record check, Officer Guajardo learned “that Odom had affiliations with criminal gang activity and that Odom had firearms-related criminal history.” Id. ¶ 7.

Because Odom did not have a valid license, Officer Guajardo “planned to have the vehicle towed after the completion of the stop.” Id. ¶ 11. Officer Guajardo asked Odom to step out of the vehicle, conducted a pat-down search, and felt a firearm near Odom’s waistband. Id. Officer Guajardo removed the firearm, which contained one round of ammunition in the chamber, placed Odom in handcuffs, and then recovered 19 rounds of ammunition from Odom’s person. Id. Officer Guajardo then placed Odom under arrest pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Odom now moves to suppress the gun and ammunition found during the search because (1) Officer Guajardo unconstitutionally prolonged the stop by asking about Odom’s probation and parole status; (2) Officer Guajardo unconstitutionally prolonged the stop by running a CRIMS check on Mr. Odom; (3) the Government has not carried its burden of establishing that towing the car was lawful; (4) the Government has not shown that the pat-search was constitutional; and (5) the Government has not established any exception to the exclusionary rule. ECF Nos. 34; 42. The Government opposes the motion. ECF No. 39.

Full text here: United States v. Odom, 588 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2022), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-odom-69

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Under the Fourth Amendment, defendant had a legitimate expectation of *320 privacy in his rented hotel room. See Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); United States v. Kitchens, 114 F.3d 29, 31 (4th Cir. 1997). Additionally, warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless the search falls within a valid exception. See Hupp v. Cook, 931 F.3d 307, 326 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)).

The government cites the so-called “community caretaker” exception as justification for the officers dispensing with the warrant requirement in entering the hotel room. Community caretaking functions include established procedures or routine activities such as impoundment of a vehicle that impedes the safe flow of traffic, entry into a car after a traffic accident to assess occupants’ medical conditions, or opening a truck compartment to identify the owner. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368–69, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976); United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 145 (4th Cir. 2005); Durney v. Doss, 106 F. App’x 166, 169 (4th Cir. 2004). The Fourth Circuit has held that the community caretaking doctrine also extends to activities “protecting the safety of persons or property.” United States v. Gillespie, 332 F. Supp. 2d 923, 929 (W.D. Va. 2004); see Phillips v. Peddle, 7 F. App’x 175, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). Courts have distinguished this doctrine from the separate, but related, exception justified by exigent or emergency circumstances. See, e.g., Hunsberger v. Wood, 570 F.3d 546, 554 (4th Cir. 2009) (“The community caretaking doctrine requires a court to look at the function performed by a police officer, while the emergency exception requires an analysis of the circumstances to determine whether an emergency requiring immediate action existed. Thus, as the district court noted, the doctrines have different intellectual underpinnings.”).

Read more here: United States v. Hewitt, 543 F.Supp.3d 317 (2021), https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-hewitt-19

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

The Court concluded that “[o]nce the entity at issue is beyond the border, the concerns animating the border search doctrine, namely the integrity of the border, diminish, and the robust Fourth Amendment requirements adhere.” This was because the installation of a GPS device “implicates a search away from the border, once the target has gained entry into the country.

The placement of a GPS device at the border necessarily implicates a search away from the border, once the target has gained entry into the country. As Justice ALito noted in his concurring opinion in Jones, the OCurt defined the search as encompassing both the installation and use of the GPS, rather than separating the procedures. Therefore, this OCurt is hesitant to mechanically apply the border search doctrine where the search stretches far beyond the conduct at the border to create a “precise comprehensive record of a person’s public movement. Ultimately, the Court concludes the placement of a GPS device on a vehicle at the border, combined with the subsequent tracking of data over a prolonged period away from it, cannot be justified by the border search exception.

Read the full case here: https://www.nacdl.org/Document/United-States-v-Slavco-Ignjatov,-et-al

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

The Border Search Doctrine is one of the longstanding warrantless search exceptions to the 4th Amendment.

Most searches at the border do not require a warrant or probable cause because of Congress’s authority to regulate commerce and maintain sovereignty.
• Border Search can be classified as “routine” or “non-routine”.
o Pat-Down or X-Ray versus Body Cavity Search.
o Non-Routine require reasonable suspicion
• Distiction does not apply in the context of vehicles.
o United States v. Flores-Montano – suspicionless disassembly of a fuel tank at the border

Extended Border Search (Checkpoints)
• Travelers who have not crossed the border cannot be thought to have given their implied consent to warrantless searches merely by traveling near the border.
• Require Reasonable Suspicion
• Law enforcement must also have “reasonable certainty” that the vehicle or contraband crossed the border.
• The Code of Federal Regulations defines “reasonable distance” to “mean within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance that may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE.”
• 2/3 of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region.

Reasonable Suspicion, Time and Distance
• United States v. Alfonso, 759 F.2d 728, 728 (9th Cir. 1985). – Search ship a second time within a day and a half of arrival at port
• United States v. Rangel-Portillo, 586 F.3d 376, 376 (5th Cir. 2009) – No Reasonable Suspicion. Vehicle about 500 yards from the border.
• The Ninth Circuit upheld extended border searches in these scenarios:
o Castillo-Garcia v. United States, 424 F.2d 482, 482–84 (9th Cir. 1970) (concluding that while the search of the vehicle occurred seven hours and 105 miles from the border, the fact that there was “constant surveillance after the border crossing until the search, and there had been a change of drivers,” the possibility that the 165 pounds of marijuana being placed after the crossing was obviated and the search was thus lawful).
o Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. United States, 378 F.2d 256, 256–59 (9th Cir. 1967) (affirming the lower court’s decision that a valid border search occurred even though it was fifteen hours and twenty miles from the border, because while there was a change in drivers after crossing the border, the information provided by an informant gave the customs officials reasonable suspicion that the defendants may have been carrying marijuana).
o United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 961–62 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 1156 (2014). Held that property, such as a laptop and other electronic storage devices, presented for inspection when entering the United States at the border may not be subject to forensic examination without a reason for suspicion. Computer taken at the border, but search occurring miles away in a forensic lab. Because “Cotterman’s computer never cleared customs [and] entry was never effected,” the extended border search doctrine did not apply.

Watch Part 1: https://youtu.be/xMW2tY3VZuc
Watch Part 2: https://youtu.be/n04dqhZVIQU

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!