FEDagent previously reported on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Carpenter v. United States. In Carpenter, the Court held that the third-party doctrine does not apply to cell-site location information, and that the government’s acquisition of cell-site location information is a search under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant. On remand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the FBI agents who obtained the cell-site location information reasonably relied on the Stored Communications Act when obtaining that information, and therefore, acted in good faith.

Mark Turner persuaded Demontae Bell to help him sell several stolen firearms. When Turner later was arrested on charges related to manufacturing methamphetamine, he cooperated with law enforcement, provided them information about the firearms sale, and aided the government in targeting Bell. After a controlled transaction, Turner showed FBI Special Agent Jason Nixon a photo of an AK-47 on his phone, which he said Bell had texted to him.

Last year, FEDagent reported on oral argument heard before the Supreme Court in Nieves v. Bartlett. This week, the Supreme Court issued its decision on that case, holding that a law enforcement officer’s probable cause to arrest an individual precludes a citizen’s First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law.

Starting in early February 2015, Ronnie Cornell Cosby used his cell phone to take photos of T.L., a 15-year old runaway, post the photos to the internet, and negotiate with men who then paid Cosby to have sex with the girl in Hammond, Indiana.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which asks whether a state statute permitting a warrantless blood alcohol draw of an unconscious driver is authorized under the Fourth Amendment.

After waiting years for the adjudication of his case without a quorum at the MSPB, a former federal employee requested relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 30, 2019, the appeals court granted his motion.

A suit against the City of Saginaw and an officer in her personal capacity for “chalking” the plaintiff’s vehicle to issue her parking tickets, alleging a violation of the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, may proceed, the Sixth Circuit recently held.

Two United States Postal Service employees challenged MSPB dismissals, for lack of jurisdiction, of their removal appeals. The MSPB found that the employees did not have appeal rights because they did not meet the definition of “employee” under 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B)(ii), which requires one year of current continuous service. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the MSPB’s dismissals. On April 1, 2019, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari appealing the appeals court decision, thereby affirming and making final the dismissal of the employees’ MSPB removal appeals.

Last year, FEDagent reported on the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 1668 (2018). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which recently issued its decision on remand.

Typographical errors, including the defendant’s IP address, were not a basis for excluding evidence on child pornography charges, the Fifth Circuit recently held.

Federal agents should have reasonably known that arriving at a defendant’s front door with ten agents to address a false exigency would have impermissibly coerced the defendant into consenting to a search of his home and computer, the First Circuit recently held.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that cell phones are not tracking devices for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3117. The First Circuit also held that the good-faith exception applies to a warrant issued in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41.

On March 1, 2019, the Federal Labor Relations Authority issued a press release stating that it was inviting amici curiae briefs on an issue in U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Michael E. DeBakey Medical Center, Houston, Texas, and American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 1633, Case No. 0-AR-5354. The issue involves whether the Federal Labor Relations Authority should reconsider relying on the factors in Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, 2 M.S.P.R. 420 (1980), when considering awards of attorney’s fees.

“Absolute consistency of belief is not a prerequisite to proving predisposition” to overcome an entrapment defense, the Fourth Circuit recently held in a case involving a former law enforcement officer who supported militant Islamism, Nazism, and white supremacy.

Retired federal law enforcement officers are entitled to the same state tax benefits as “similarly situated” retired state law enforcement officers, the U.S. Supreme Court held this week.

Last week, the Fifth Circuit utilized the common-law trespass test to find that a state trooper’s tapping of a car tire was a search.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit held that officers may not extend a lawfully initiated traffic stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself absent reasonable suspicion that the individual committed a criminal offense.

Last week, FEDagent reported on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Siler v. EPA, on the issue of whether EPA adequately asserted the attorney-client privilege to withhold documents from Siler during the discovery phase of his MSPB appeal his removal from federal service. This week, we report on the portion of the court’s decision that vacated the MSPB’s denial of Siler’s whistleblower reprisal affirmative defense and remanded the matter to MSPB for further proceedings.

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of an Merit System Protection Board Administrative Judge, and found that the EPA made no evidentiary showing to prove its claim of the attorney-client privilege to prevent the discovery of draft proposed disciplinary actions.  

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, via a panel decision, held that when a federal employee is removed from service on a charge of “positive test for illegal drug use,” there is no requirement for the government to prove that the employee intended to use an illegal drug.