Daily Archives: November 28, 2014

Updated: Wednesday, November 26 2014, 09:34 PM CST

A new rule in Texas will stop a warrantless search of a DWI suspect's blood. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says the move violates the Fourth Amendment.

"We hold that a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect's blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory-blood draw and implied-consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement, violates the Fourth Amendment," the court said in its decision released Wednesday.

This shouldn't impact Austin's "no refusal" blood draws during DWI crackdowns because those blood draws are done with a warrant by having a judge present.

CLICK HERE to read the court's decision.

We'll have more on this story in our 5 and 6pm newscasts.

Follow us on Twitter @keyetv and LIKE us on Facebook for updates!

Go here to see the original:
Court: Texas Nonconsensual DWI Blood Draws Unconstitutional

Updated: Wednesday, November 26 2014, 09:34 PM CST

A new rule in Texas will stop a warrantless search of a DWI suspect's blood. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals says the move violates the Fourth Amendment.

"We hold that a nonconsensual search of a DWI suspect's blood conducted pursuant to the mandatory-blood draw and implied-consent provisions in the Transportation Code, when undertaken in the absence of a warrant or any applicable exception to the warrant requirement, violates the Fourth Amendment," the court said in its decision released Wednesday.

This shouldn't impact Austin's "no refusal" blood draws during DWI crackdowns because those blood draws are done with a warrant by having a judge present.

CLICK HERE to read the court's decision.

We'll have more on this story in our 5 and 6pm newscasts.

Follow us on Twitter @keyetv and LIKE us on Facebook for updates!

The rest is here:
Court: Texas Warrantless DWI Blood Draws Unconstitutional

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a brief supporting a challenge to the use of a cellphone tracking device in a federal case in Maryland, arguing that the technology raises "serious Fourth Amendment concerns" and that authorities misled a judge in obtaining a court order.

The case involves a murder-for-hire sting conducted by Baltimore police and the FBI this year, according to court records. Police gave a cellphone to Derrick Smith so he could communicate with an undercover officer, and later used a device known as a stingray to locate the phone.

The device, which was developed for the military, mimics a cellphone tower to force all phones in range to connect to it. Civil liberties advocates say it exposes the information of bystanders.

The stingray helped police pinpoint the phone inside the home of Robert Harrison, who along with Smith is now facing murder-for-hire charges.

The disclosure by authorities that they had used a stingray was a rare admission regarding a technology that police across the country have sought to keep secret, The Baltimore Sun reported this week.

Harrison's attorney, C. Justin Brown, is fighting to suppress the phone evidence on the grounds that its use amounted to a search that was not clearly authorized by a court order.

The government, in its response to Brown's filing, said it could not discuss the technology in detail but that the court order police obtained was appropriate.

In its supporting brief, the ACLU adds to Brown's arguments, saying the device's ability to locate phones inside homes raises questions about whether it is subject to sufficient court oversight.

"No search warrant would permit the police to search the homes of every house in a neighborhood," the ACLU atorneys wrote. "Yet, with the stingray, the police can do just that, searching every home, vehicle, purse and pocket in a given area without anyone ever learning that their devices were searched by the police."

The organization cites two recent cases, reported by The Baltimore Sun, in which police said they were able to locate a phone inside a home or moving vehicle. Prosecutors in two other Baltimore cases withdrew evidence recently after police told a city judge they couldn't discuss the device.

Link:
ACLU joins Md. federal case over cellphone tracking

LAGRANGE A looming settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit has forced some Indiana jails to change the way they handle bookings, even as similar lawsuits work their way through the states courts.

Lawsuits have been filed in at least five counties alleging violations of Fourth Amendment rights. A lawsuit involving a LaGrange County man and woman who were arrested in 2008 near a meth lab is expected to be the first to be settled. Suits also are pending in Allen, Whitley, Clark and St. Joseph counties.

The cases have focused largely on the cost of loss of liberty and have exposed jail policies that violate the Constitution, The Times of Northwest Indiana reported.

In Whitley County, for instance, Huntington resident Lawrence Bickel sued the sheriff in 2008 after he was arrested without a warrant on a Thursday in 2006. Bickels detention was not judged to have probable cause until the following Monday, because the county had a policy of taking arrestees to court just once a week regardless of when they were detained.

In LaGrange County, where Amanda Strunk and Joshua Cleveland were held for three and seven days, respectively, Sheriff Terry Martin blamed the violations on the countys prosecutor and two judges.

We found out there was a problem. We corrected the problem, Martin said of a new policy he said was crafted with the cooperation of everyone but outgoing Prosecutor Jeff Wible. Everybody agreed on it except for one person.

The new policy requires his officers to sometimes lengthen their shifts to finish paperwork related to arrests by not only their departments officers, but others, as well.

Theres a lot of paperwork in law enforcement as it is, Martin said. Weve just added on.

Attorney Christopher Myers, of Fort Wayne, the lead attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuits, said case law makes it clear that a sheriff is responsible for enforcing Fourth Amendment rights because he holds the key to the jail.

Myers said his law firm researched the issue after hearing from inmates around the state complaining their jail stints were too long.

Continue reading here:
Suit brings change in jail bookings