Category Archives: Search and Seizure

State v. Allah: Probationer’s Right Against Unlawful Search

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Probation, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In State v. Allah, the WA Court of Appeals held a probationer’s vehicle was unlawfully searched and seized during a traffic stop. His prior criminal history, gang affiliations and geographic boundary  restrictions did not establish a sufficient nexus for a warrantless search.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In October 2020, Mr. Allah was on probation for a 2017 firearm conviction. He was driving his car in the Central District of Seattle, when a police officer pulled him over on suspicion of driving with a suspended license. After learning of Allah’s probationary status, the officer contacted the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Officer requested a Community Corrections Officer (CCO) arrive at the scene to discuss next steps.

While he was on his way to the scene, the CCO reviewed Allah’s prior conditions of community custody. The CCO noted Allah was in violation of a geographic boundary condition, which excluded him from the Central District. The geographic restriction  was in place because Allah was in a gang associated with the Central District.

Upon arriving at the scene, the CCO talked with Allah and then searched the car, specifically for a firearm. The CCO located a firearm on the floorboard underneath the driver’s seat. He collected the firearm as evidence and arrested Allah.

The State charged Allah with a Firearm Offense because his prior convictions barred him from possessing firearms. Allah moved to suppress the firearm evidence from the CCO’s search under a CrR 3.6 Motion. Allah argued there was an insufficient nexus between the search and Allah’s geographic violation. The judge denied Allah’s 3.6 Motion.

In December 2022, a jury convicted Allah as charged.  Allah appealed.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) established that the Washington Constitution provides a robust privacy right; stating that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” That said, warrantless seizures are per se unreasonable and subject to limited exceptions. The State has the burden of proving a warrantless search falls within an exception.

THE COA further established that parolees and probationers have diminished privacy rights. This is because they are persons whom a court has sentenced to confinement but who are serving their time outside the prison walls. As such, a probationer may be searched on the basis of a wellfounded or reasonable suspicion of a probation violation rather than a warrant supported by probable cause.

Even with probationer’s diminished privacy rights, however, the Washington Constitution permits a warrantless search of the property of an individual on probation only where there is a nexus between the property searched and the alleged probation violation.

“Permitting searches without a nexus would allow fishing expeditions to discover evidence of other crimes, past or present. After all, if a prior conviction, not to mention a prior arrest, should afford grounds for believing that an individual is engaging in criminal activity at any given time thereafter, that person would never be free of harassment, no matter how completely he had reformed.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The COA’s Rationale On “Sufficient Nexus”

The COA further surmised that even when there is a nexus between the property searched and the suspected probation violation, an individual’s reduced privacy interest is safeguarded in two ways. First, a CCO must have reasonable cause to believe’ a probation violation has occurred before conducting a search at the expense of the individual’s privacy. Second, the individual’s privacy interest is diminished only to the extent necessary for the State to monitor compliance with the particular probation condition that gave rise to the search. The individual’s other property, which has no nexus to the suspected violation, remains free from search.

In sum, neither CCO or the State provide a sufficient explanation of why any person would reasonably believe Allah may have had a weapon immediately preceding the search. No matter how the constitutionality of the search is conceptualized—i.e., whether as requiring a nexus between the boundary violation and the vehicle searched, or as simply requiring reasonable suspicion—the logical gap remains.

As to the geographic boundary, CCO admitted it was irrelevant to his decision to search. As to Allah’s prior firearm conviction, our Supreme Court has long explained that a probationer’s past convictions alone are not enough to support a search. Otherwise, a probationer “would never be free of harassment, no matter how completely he had reformed.”

With that, the COA reversed the lower court’s denial of Allah’s CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the firearm evidence. The COA also reversed Allah’s conviction, and remanded the matter to the lower court for future proceedings.

Please review my Search and Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v. Ortega: Court Upholds Forensic Search of Defendant’s Cell Phone Using “Cellebrite Touch” Software

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Cell Phone, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Supreme Court cell phone ruling doesn't affect local law enforcement

In State v. Ortega, the WA Court of Appeals held that police officers executing a search warrant for an electronic device are not exceeding the scope of the warrant by manually searching through all the images on a device to find and seize images depicting specific content.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Ortega was investigated for sex offenses against his girlfriend’s children. Police believed Mr. Ortega’s cell phone probably contained evidence of the crimes with which he was charged. They obtained possession of the cell phone from a family member, who voluntarily turned it over to police. The court granted the police’s request for a search warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, police searched the phone and seized 35 images, many of which were incriminating.

Mr. Ortega moved to suppress the fruits of the cell phone search. He argued that the warrant was insufficiently particular, in violation of the state and federal constitutions. At his suppression hearing, officers testified they began the search by connecting Mr. Ortega’s phone to an extraction device known as the “Cellebrite Touch.”  They ran an extraction that allowed the files on Mr. Ortega’s phone to be organized into categories (for example, messages, images, etc.). Once extracted, data is not visible unless someone opens the individual category folders through Cellebrite’s physical analyzer program.

After the data extraction, police produced a thumb drive containing more than 5,000 extracted images. One officer testified it was similar to being given a physical photo album and having to flip through the pages to find what you are looking for.

The trial court denied Mr. Ortega’s motion to suppress the images seized from his cell phone. Mr. Ortega subsequently waived his right to a jury trial and his case was tried to the bench. The court found Mr. Ortega guilty as charged. Mr. Ortega timely appealed on arguments that the State’s case was tainted by evidence seized during an unconstitutional cell phone search.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

1. The Search Warrant Passed the “Particularity Requirement.”

The Court of Appeals (COA) began by explaining that both the Fourth Amendment and the Washington Constitution require that a search warrant describe with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The particularity requirement, which aims to prevent generalized rummaging through a suspect’s private affairs, is of heightened importance in the cell phone context. This is because of the vast amount of sensitive data contained on the average user’s smartphone device. The purposes of the particularity requirement are to prevent a general search, limit the discretion of executing officers, and ensure that items to be searched or seized are supported by probable cause, said the COA.

Consequently, the COA reasoned the warrant satisfied the particularity requirement. It directed officers to search the phone and seize images and/or videos depicting Mr. Ortega engaged in sexual contact with minors.

“This did not permit a general rummaging; it was akin to a warrant allowing a search of a residence for controlled substances and indicia of ownership.” ~WA Court of Appeals

2. Officers Did Not Exceed the Scope of the Warrant.

The COA discussed the scope of a search can be limited by identifying targeted content. When a warrant authorizes a search for a particular item, the scope of the search “generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found.

The COA reasoned that police properly limited the scope of their search to the terms of the warrant. The incriminating images could have been located almost anywhere on Mr. Ortega’s cell phone—not only in a photos application, but also in e-mails and text messages.

Furthermore, had the detectives chosen to search Mr. Ortega’s phone manually, they likely would have needed to sort through data other than images in order to find the targets of their search. And they would have risked jeopardizing the evidentiary integrity of the phone. By instead using forensic software, the detectives were able to organize the data from Mr. Ortega’s phone without first viewing the phone’s contents. This enabled them to limit their search to data labeled as photos and videos, thus restricting the scope of the search to areas where the target of the search could be found.

“By using forensic software to extract and organize data from Mr. Ortega’s phone, the detectives were able to minimize their review of the phone contents and tailor their search to the evidence authorized by the warrant. This did not violate Mr. Ortega’s constitutional rights.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the COA denied Mr. Ortega’s appeal and upheld his convictions.

Please review my Search & Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Allow More Aggressive Homeless Encampment Removals

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Eighth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Activists demonstrate at the Supreme Court as the justices consider a challenge to rulings that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, on Capitol Hill April 22 in Washington. (AP photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(AP photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld Oregon’s ban on camping. It found laws that criminalize sleeping in public spaces do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The city of Grants Pass in southern Oregon has a population of approximately 38,000. Of that population, somewhere between 50 and 600 persons are unhoused. Whatever the exact number of unhoused persons, however, it exceeds the number of available shelter beds, requiring that at least some of them sleep on the streets or in parks. However, several provisions of the Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibit them from doing so, including an “anti-sleeping” ordinance, two “anti-camping” ordinances, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance.

A district court certified a class of plaintiffs of involuntarily unhoused persons living in Grants Pass. The district court concluded that, based on the unavailability of shelter beds, the City’s enforcement of its anti-camping and anti-sleeping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the nation’s policy on homelessness shouldn’t be dictated by federal judges, rather such decisions should be left to state and local leaders.

“Homelessness is complex,” Gorsuch wrote. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.”

“At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not,” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that, for some people, sleeping outside is a “biological necessity” and it’s possible to balance issues facing local governments with constitutional principles and the humanity of homeless people.

“Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.” ~Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Criminalizing homelessness can “cause a destabilizing cascade of harm,” Sotomayor added. When a person is arrested or separated from their belongings, the items that are frequently destroyed include important documents needed for accessing jobs and housing or items required for work such as uniforms and bicycles, Sotomayor wrote.

My opinion? The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will likely result in municipalities taking more aggressive action to remove encampments. This may include searching homeless people’s property and/or discarding it. Since the ruling allows municipalities to issue more citations and arrests without violating the Eighth Amendment, the decision could lead to more legal claims over other constitutional protections, which could include the disposal of people’s property during encampment removals. Other legal claims over cities’ treatment of homeless people have focused on rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and guaranteeing due process, in the Fourth and 14th Amendments.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Can Police Access Your Home Security Cameras?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

An illustration of an police badge-shaped eyeball placed on the top of a video doorbell with a blue background.

Photo Credit: Reviewed / Tara Jacoby

Home security systems are an excellent way to protect your loved ones and belongings from unwanted intruders. With a sophisticated security setup, you can ensure a sense of control, vigilance and assurance, allowing you to focus on the moments that truly matter. Privacy is a priority for most homeowners investing in smart home security devices, especially when it comes to worries about hacking or data theft.

Although beneficial, these devices raise other concerns. Can law enforcement legally capture and/or review your home surveillance video footage whenever they want? Would you even know if they did?

REQUESTING CLOUD VIDEO UNDER “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES” EXCEPTION TO  SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

First, law enforcement may request cloud video footage in case of an emergency, better known as “Exigent Circumstances.” Here an “emergency” typically means a life-or-death situation or something else high-stakes, such as a kidnapping or a manhunt for a violent criminal.

Most security companies that offer video storage in North America will obey these emergency requests. Here’s an explanation from Google Nest on how it handles sharing user data with law enforcement. It also exlaines how it may try to narrow the scope of the request for user privacy, and how it may or may not let users know about the request. Security users may not know that their cloud videos were accessed by police.

“Before complying with a request, we make sure it follows the law and Nest’s policies,” the company says. “We notify users about legal demands, when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order. And if we think a request is overly broad, we’ll seek to narrow it.” ~Google Nest

In these situations, law enforcement contacts the cloud video management organization directly (usually your security brand like Arlo or Ring), and requests specific video footage from an area through channels set up to allow for such requests.

SEEKING A WARRANT FOR HOME SECURITY DEVICES

Another option police have to seize cam footage is via a warrant or similar court order. Warrants allow police to take home security devices and examine them, including any local storage that you have, so avoiding cloud storage won’t help very much.

Typically, warrants are granted only when police can provide some evidence that a crime may have been committed on the property. It depends on the court and judge where the warrant is requested, but granting warrants is common. The warrant then becomes active and has a specific scope for where and what it applies to (which is why you should always ask to view a warrant if law enforcement wants your security cameras).

Warrants raise a further important question: Will you get your home cam back if it’s seized during a legal search? That’s a subject of some deliberation, although it’s generally agreed from cases like these that the Fourth Amendment prevents law enforcement from holding onto digital devices or data indefinitely. Getting your camera back during a real-world seizure may not be so cut and dried.

REGISTERING SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

There’s an interesting third option for law enforcement that’s been growing in popularity, especially in certain cities and states where police departments are looking to tap into smart home tech. Home security owners can register their cameras and similar devices with local police departments, letting them know there is a device at a specific property that’s recording. We’re seeing programs like this everywhere from Buffalo, New York’s SafeCam to the Bay Area in California.

These programs vary, but there are several important points. First, this isn’t the same thing as registering an alarm system via a local permit, it’s specifically for video recording devices. Second, registering does not mean police can look through your cams or view any recorded footage. They know where registered residential cameras are, so they can request footage directly from participants with cameras near a crime, etc.

Finally, if you do grant permission to police to access a registered camera, they’ll be able to view and copy video images, which can be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. Often, registration programs have requirements like banning you from sharing video with the media and other fine print. Keep in mind, police may still be able to seek a warrant to take cams and video footage if you deny a request via a registration program.

POSTING HOME SECURITY FOOTAGE ONLINE

A number of security brands offer ways to post videos online through things like the Ring Neighbors app, dedicated forums, social media groups and so on. If you post a video in a public space like this, even if you’re only asking for advice, then it’s fair game for law enforcement to use as well. Just this year, however, Ring decided to end its more liberal sharing program with police, limiting them to the life-or-death requests discussed above.

Please review my Search & Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving home security footage. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State Auditor’s Report: Police Agencies Can Be More Transparent About Returning Seized Assets

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Among the nearly 1,000 people who had property seized by the Washington police agencies that were audited, only 25% were convicted of a crime.

Photo courtesy of the Seattle Times

According to the Seattle Times, a new state audit says that Washington police agencies could be more transparent about the process of seizing a defendant’s assets after arrest. Personal property like cars, cash or guns that are seized in the course of criminal investigations can often be returned, but are not.

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE

Police, in a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, can seize items they believe were used in a crime without an arrest, criminal charge or conviction of the person who owns the property. State law lets police agencies keep 90% of the proceeds from forfeitures and to use the money to help disrupt illegal drug activity.

In Washington, police can seize property if they believe it is connected to a crime. If the police agency decides not to pursue forfeiture, they can then return the property to its owner. But if the agency decides to move forward, an initial notice goes to the owner (within 15 days), who can file a claim to get it back (within 45 days, or 90 days for real property like land or buildings).

THE STATE AUDITOR’S REPORT FINDINGS

The report reviewed eight police agencies, including the Seattle Police Department. Agencies were chosen based on location, the type of agency and level of civil asset forfeiture activity.

Among the audited agencies, 75% of seized property was automatically forfeited because the owner either did not file a claim, file a claim on time, or failed to attend a hearing. For many of the reviewed cases, it was because claims weren’t filed. Auditors also found that among the 1,000 people who were faced with forfeiture at those eight agencies, only 25% were convicted of a crime. Auditors also found that police often seized property worth less than $2,000.00. More disturbing, at least one racial or ethnic group was overrepresented in forfeiture data compared with their share of the population.

At the Seattle Police Department, for example, Latinos made up an estimated 23% of the people whose assets were forfeited, despite being 7% of the population, and Black people 17%, despite being 7% of the population. But at the Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force, white people were overrepresented by 9 percentage points.

The report also suggested police agencies can do more to make sure people know their property has been seized. Agencies can also better discuss the process of getting property returned, like providing information in languages other than English.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. In many cases, a defense attorney can argue a Motion for the Release of Personal Property which was confiscated by police. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

DNA + Facial Recognition Technology = Junk Science

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Psychological Assessment in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping “Junk Science” Out of the Courtroom? – Association for Psychological Science – APS

Intriguing article in Wired featured a story where police used DNA to predict a suspect’s face and then tried running facial recognition technology on the photo.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 2017, detectives working a cold case at the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department got an idea, one that might help them finally get a lead on the murder of Maria Jane Weidhofer. Officers had found Weidhofer, dead and sexually assaulted, at Berkeley, California’s Tilden Regional Park in 1990. Nearly 30 years later, the department sent genetic information collected at the crime scene to Parabon NanoLabs—a company that says it can turn DNA into a face.

Soon, Parabon NanoLabs provided the police department with the face of a potential suspect, generated using only crime scene evidence.

The image Parabon NanoLabs produced, called a Snapshot Phenotype Report, wasn’t a photograph. It was a 3D representation of how the company’s algorithm predicted a person could look given genetic attributes found in the DNA sample.

The face of the murderer, the company predicted, was male. He had fair skin, brown eyes and hair, no freckles, and bushy eyebrows. A forensic artist employed by the company photoshopped a nondescript, close-cropped haircut onto the man and gave him a mustache—an artistic addition informed by a witness description and not the DNA sample.

In 2017, the department published the predicted face in an attempt to solicit tips from the public. Then, in 2020, one of the detectives  asked to have the rendering run through facial recognition software. It appears to be the first known instance of a police department attempting to use facial recognition on a face algorithmically generated from crime-scene DNA.

At this point it is unknown whether the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center honored the East Bay detective’s request.

DOES THIS SEARCH VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?

Some argue this search emphasizes the ways that law enforcement is able to mix and match technologies in unintended ways. In short, this search uses untested algorithms to single out suspects based on unknowable criteria.

“It’s really just junk science to consider something like this,” Jennifer Lynch, general counsel at civil liberties nonprofit the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells WIRED. Running facial recognition with unreliable inputs, like an algorithmically generated face, is more likely to misidentify a suspect than provide law enforcement with a useful lead, she argues.

“There’s no real evidence that Parabon can accurately produce a face in the first place . . . It’s very dangerous, because it puts people at risk of being a suspect for a crime they didn’t commit.” ~Jennifer Lynch, General Counsel at Electronic Frontier Foundation.

According to a report released in September by the US Government Accountability Office, only 5 percent of the 196 FBI agents who have access to facial recognition technology from outside vendors have completed any training on how to properly use the tools. The report notes that the agency also lacks any internal policies for facial recognition to safeguard against privacy and civil liberties abuses.

In the past few years, facial recognition has improved considerably. In 2018, when the National Institute of Standards and Technology tested face recognition algorithms on a mug shot database of 12 million people, it found that 99.9 percent of searches identified the correct person. However, the NIST also found disparities in how the algorithms it tested performed across demographic groups.

A 2019 report from Georgetown’s Center on Privacy and Technology was written by Clare Garvie, a facial recognition expert and privacy lawyer. She found that law enforcement agencies nationwide have used facial recognition tools indiscriminately. They’ve tried using images that include blurry surveillance camera shots, manipulated photos of suspects, and even composite sketches created by traditional artists.

“Because modern facial recognition algorithms are trained neural networks, we just don’t know exactly what criteria the systems use to identify a face . . . Daisy chaining unreliable or imprecise black-box tools together is simply going to produce unreliable results. We should know this by now.” ~ Clare Garvie, Esq.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Should We Ban Hog-Tying By Police?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Police Misconduct, Race & Law, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Report: Most of America's largest police departments allow officers to choke, strangle, and hog-tie people | The Week

King5 News reports that Democratic Sen. Yasmin Trudeau has sponsored a bill banning hog-tying by police. The restraint technique has long drawn concern due to the risk of suffocation, and while many cities and counties have banned the restraint technique, it remains in use in others.

The legislation comes nearly four years after Manuel Ellis, a 33-year-old Black man, died facedown with his hands and feet cuffed together behind him. The case that became a touchstone for racial justice demonstrators in the Pacific Northwest.

Senator Trudeau said she doesn’t want anyone else to experience the “dehumanization” Ellis faced before his death.

“How do we move through the need for folks to enforce the laws, but do it in a way where they’re treating people the way we expect, which is as human beings?” ~Senator Yasmin Trudeau

In the last four years, states across the U.S. have rushed to pass sweeping policing reforms.  The legislation was prompted by racial injustice protests and the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of law enforcement. Few have banned prone restraint, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The attorney general’s office in Washington recommended against using hog-tying in its model use-of-force policy released in 2022. At least four local agencies continue to permit it, according to policies they submitted to the attorney general’s office that year.

The Pierce County Sheriff’s Department said it still allows hog-tying but declined to comment on the bill. One of the department’s deputies was involved in restraining Ellis, whose face was covered by a spit-hood when he died.

THOSE SUPPORTING THE LEGISLATION

Trudeau, who represents Tacoma, said she made sure Ellis’ sister, Monet Carter-Mixon, approved of her efforts before introducing the bill. Democratic Sen. John Lovick, who worked as a state trooper for more than 30 years, joined Trudeau in sponsoring the bill. Republican Rep. Gina Mosbrucker, a member of the House public safety committee, said she looked forward to learning more about the legislation.

“If it does turn out that this form of restraint for combative detainees is dangerous in any way, then I think the state should put together a grant and some money to buy and train on alternative methods to make sure that the officer and the person arrested is safe.” ~Republican Rep. Gina Mosbrucker

Please review my Search & Seizur Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Faulty Body Scanners at Whatcom County Jail

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

X-ray scanners stop over 1,000 illegal items entering prisons - GOV.UK

According to the Bellingham Herald, faulty body scanners at the Whatcom County Jail are letting drugs and other contraband into the lockup and must be replaced.

“Within the last two weeks, we’ve had three overdoses related to fentanyl that’s been smuggled into the facility. This is becoming an increasing problem, and those scanners are one of the main tools that we have to detect contraband, both weapons and drugs being smuggled into the facility by persons coming in to the facility through the booking process.” ~WCSO Undersheriff Doug Chadwick

According to previous Bellingham Herald reporting, those scanners were bought in 2018 and 2019 to keep drugs, weapons, cigarettes and lighters out of the jail. Unfortunately, the company that makes the scanners isn’t servicing or maintaining them. Thus far in 2023 there have been 13 overdoses in Whatcom County jail facilities.
My opinion? These security breaches should not be happening. Hopefully, the newly-passed sales tax to pay for a new Whatcom County jail will bring new and improved scanners. Proposition 4 – which passed by 66% in Whatcom County – was the third jail measure Whatcom County had put before voters since 2015. The 2015 plan was for a 521-bed jail at a cost of $125 million. After voters rejected that proposal, county leaders came back in 2017 with 480 beds and a $110 million price tag. Voters rejected this smaller, cheaper jail even more resoundingly.
Under the law, correctional officers have more leeway to order intrusive searches of inmates in a county jail or prison. Along with body scanners, officers can perform a strip search if the search is related to reasonable objectives, such as safety and security. As a result, a defendant’s Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure isn’t available if they’re in custody.
Police can perform strip searches without the factors that would give rise to a suspicion that the arrestee possessed concealed contraband. This is allowed, even though nothing about their case would lead police to believe they had anything dangerous or prohibited on their person. Making matters worse, it’s a felony for an inmate to possess weapons and/or contraband.
Jail is a terrible place. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

AI Facial Recognition Tech Leads to Mistaken Identity Arrests

Artificial Intelligence, Bellingham Defense Attorney, False Arrest, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Facial recognition fails on race, government study says - BBC News

Interesting article by Sudhin Thanawala and the Associated Press describes lawsuits filed on the misuse of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. The lawsuits come as Facial Recognition Technology and its potential risks are under scrutiny. Experts warn about Artificial Intelligence (AI’s) tendency toward errors and bias.

Numerous black plaintiffs claim they were misidentified by facial recognition technology and then wrongly arrested. Three of those lawsuits, including one by a woman who was eight months pregnant and accused of a carjacking, are against Detroit police.

The lawsuits accuse law enforcement of false arrest, malicious prosecution and negligence. They also allege Detroit police engaged “in a pattern of racial discrimination of (Woodruff) and other Black citizens by using facial recognition technology practices proven to misidentify Black citizens at a higher rate than others in violation of the equal protection guaranteed by” Michigan’s 1976 civil rights act.

WHAT IS FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY?

The technology allows law enforcement agencies to feed images from video surveillance into software that can search government databases or social media for a possible match. Critics say it results in a higher rate of misidentification of people of color than of white people. Supporters say it has been vital in catching drug dealers, solving killings and missing persons cases and identifying and rescuing human trafficking victims. They also contend the vast majority of images that are scoured are criminal mugshots, not driver’s license photos or random pictures of individuals.

Still, some states and cities have limited its use.

“The use of this technology by law enforcement, even if standards and protocols are in place, has grave civil liberty and privacy concerns . . . And that’s to say nothing about the reliability of the technology itself.” ~Sam Starks, a senior attorney with The Cochran Firm in Atlanta.

FALSE ARRESTS BASED ON INACCURATE IDENTIFICATIONS FROM AI CAN SUPPORT A DEFENSE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY

My opinion? AI should be abandoned if the technology incorrectly identifies perpetrators. As a matter of law, the prosecution must prove the identity of the perpetrator of an alleged crime.

According to the jury instructions on Mistaken Identity, in determining the weight to be given to eyewitness identification testimony, jurors may consider other factors that bear on the accuracy of the identification. These may include:

  • The witness’s capacity for observation, recall and identification;
  • The opportunity of the witness to observe the alleged criminal act and the perpetrator of that act;
  • The emotional state of the witness at the time of the observation;
  • The witness’s ability, following the observation, to provide a description of the perpetrator of the act;
  • The witness’s familiarity or lack of familiarity with people of the perceived race or ethnicity of the perpetrator of the act;
  • The period of time between the alleged criminal act and the witness’s identification;
  • The extent to which any outside influences or circumstances may have affected the witness’s impressions or recollection; and
  • Any other factor relevant to this question.

But what happens when the “eyewitness identifier” is, in fact, AI technology?

At trial, the defense should procure an expert witness who’d testify on the inaccuracies of AI technology. That’s an appropriate route to challenging the credibility of this “witness.”

Please review my Search & Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving AI. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Forensic Genetic Genealogy Is Admissible Evidence At Trial

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DNA, Forensics, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

How DNA was discovered and the cases it has helped solve

In State v. Hartman  the WA Court of Appeals held a defendant has no privacy interest in bodily fluids that he “abandons” at a crime scene. A defendant also lacks standing to challenge a search of the DNA of relatives that were voluntarily uploaded to a public database.

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 1986, MW, a 12-year-old girl, was raped and murdered in a Tacoma park. The killer left semen on MW’s body, but his DNA did not match that of any suspects or anyone in police databases for the next 30 years.

In 2018, police enlisted Parabon Nanolabs, a DNA technology company, to analyze the killer’s DNA and to upload it into GEDmatch, a consumer DNA database, looking for partial familial matches that would help identify the killer. Police did not secure a warrant to analyze the abandoned DNA or to compare it with DNA in the GEDmatch database.

Parabon learned that several of the killer’s cousins had DNA in the GEDmatch database. Parabon used information from the database and public records to construct family trees. Parabon then directed police to try to obtain a DNA sample from Gary Charles Hartman. Police obtained a discarded napkin containing Hartman’s DNA, and it matched the DNA from semen on MW’s body. The State charged Hartman with first degree felony murder.

Before trial, Hartman moved to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing that Parabon’s comparison of the DNA sample from the crime scene to the GEDmatch database was unconstitutional. He also asserted that the DNA later collected from the napkin directly linking him to the murder was inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. Hartman did not argue below that he had any privacy interest in DNA left at the crime scene, nor did he challenge the collection and testing of DNA from the discarded napkin.

The trial court ruled that Hartman did not have legal standing to challenge the comparison of the DNA from the crime scene to DNA in the GEDmatch database because he did not have a privacy interest in his cousins’ DNA in the database. In addition, Hartman’s relatives had voluntarily uploaded their DNA into the GEDmatch database, and the DNA that Hartman left at the crime scene was abandoned and not private. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the trial court convicted Hartman.

Hartman appealed his conviction. He argues that analyzing the DNA sample from the crime scene and comparing it with the GEDmatch database to look for his relatives’ DNA disturbed his private affairs in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Thus, he argues that he had standing to challenge the DNA comparison. In oral argument, he asserted for the first time that he has a privacy interest in the DNA from the semen abandoned at the crime scene.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals held there is no privacy interest in commonly held DNA that a relative voluntarily uploads to a public database that openly allows law enforcement access.

“Hartman claims a privacy interest in the segments of his DNA that his relatives had in common with him. But all that police learned from the GEDmatch analysis was the killer’s familial relations, which brought them closer to learning the killer’s identity. And identifying unknown family members is the exact reason that users of consumer databases, like Hartman’s relatives, post their genetic material on those databases.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

The Court also ruled there is no privacy interest in DNA that one abandons at a crime scene.

“Voluntary exposure to the public is relevant to our inquiry and can negate an asserted privacy interest.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that Hartman lost any privacy interest in the semen he left behind or the DNA it contained. Therefore, Hartman’s attempt to challenge any DNA analysis of the semen he left behind on MW’s body fails.

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Hartman’s convictions.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.