Earlier this year, FEDagent reported on oral argument heard before the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, a case that asks whether a state statute permitting a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious driver is authorized under the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the Supreme Court issued its decision on that case, and held that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent circumstances doctrine permits a blood test without a warrant.

On August 4, 2015, the United States Postal Inspection Service in Honolulu executed a search warrant and found approximately six pounds of methamphetamine in a package from Las Vegas, addressed to Bryant Kazuyoshi Iwai’s condominium. The next day DEA agents obtained a second warrant to track a controlled delivery of the package to Iwai’s building, with a GPS tracking device that would activate a rapid beeping signal when the package was opened.

After the president issued three executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees, several federal employee unions filed lawsuits in district court to challenge provisions in those orders. Those suits were consolidated at the district court in June 2018. In its August 2018 decision, the district court found several provisions in the executive orders unlawful, and ordered agencies to cease implementation of those provisions. The government appealed the district court decision, and on July 16, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the unions’ claims, and vacated the district court judgment.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit held that law enforcement cannot detain incident to the execution of a search warrant when the purpose of the search is to detain, interrogate, and arrest a large number of individuals without individualized reasonable suspicion.

The Supreme Court ruled this week on Gamble v. United States, first reported in FedAgent in October 2018.

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.