Author Archive | Allegra Glashausser

When agents came to search his business, Mr. Drago asked, why and what crime was being investigated? The agents said, look at the warrant. But…the warrant didn’t say what crime they were investigating. Instead, it completely failed to state any crimes at all. Even the government admitted the warrant was invalid. But, it argued that they didn’t mean to draft an unconstitutional warrant and that they were protected by their good faith intentions.

In a lengthy report and recommendation issued this week, an EDNY magistrate judge rejected that argument. The judge wrote: the “lack of intent to create a bad warrant (or to cover-up that error) does not automatically translate into a finding of objective good faith belief that the conduct was lawful.”  Instead, the conduct of the search was “sufficiently reckless such that no objective officer could have believed that they were acting in good faith.”

A rare defense …

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court might decide that the answer is yes. The Supreme Court has granted cert in a case out of Kansas, in which a police officer ran the license plate of a passing car (for reasons unexplained in the Kansas decision given that there was no traffic infraction) and saw that the registered owner had a suspended driver’s license. Based only on that – and with no information about whether the owner was actually driving – the police pulled over the car. Mr. Glover, who was the owner and did not have a valid driver’s license, was charged with “driving as a habitual violator.”

The Kansas Supreme Court held that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull over the car and suppressed the evidence (which in this case, seems to only be the fact that Mr. Glover was, indeed, driving). That sounds right! But Kansas sought …

No opinions or relevant summary orders from the Second Circuit today.

But, big news from SDNY on solitary confinement: Yesterday, Judge Scheindlin approved a settlement in Peoples v. Annucci that will overhaul solitary confinement in New York state prisons. The settlement is about what is called the “SHU,” which is pronounced like “shoe,” and is an abbreviation for “Special Housing Units.” The agreement should, among other things, end this type of solitary confinement for more than 1,100 people, limit the duration of time people have to stay in solitary, and eliminate the use of solitary as punishment for minor violations. Judge Scheindlin wrote that the settlement is the “best example of the power of impact litigation to redress conditions that affect the most vulnerable members of our society.”

It should, however, be noted that while this is a big change, it does not do everything. Some class members objected that …

Two summary orders today.

First, United States v. Tanaka: To understand this one, a short backstory is needed: In 2010, Mr. Tanaka and Mr. Vilar were sentenced to 60 months and 108 months of prison time, respectively. Both were fined $25,000. Fast forward to 2014, when both men were resentenced after a successful appeal. But, things weren’t better this time around: Mr. Tanaka got 72 months and Mr. Vilar, 120 months. The fine was increased by 400% to $ 10 million. What changed in between? Mr. Tanaka and Mr. Vilar argued nothing…except that they were successful on appeal and had defended themselves against a government civil suit. They argued their increased sentences were vindictive.

However, the Second Circuit disagreed. The court found that their increased sentences were not based on the exercise of their legal rights, but on their “anti-social conduct following their initial sentence.” The court affirmed the …