Source: https://blogs.duanemorris.com/whitecollarcriminallaw/author/erbreslin/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:03:25+00:00

Document:
“(P)lain view” seizures were recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). The doctrine is true to its name: it permits warrantless seizures of illegal contraband that is in the “plain view” of law enforcement. This is the law in New Jersey too. State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (1983).
There is common sense at work here. If law enforcement finds evidence out in the open, it would be unduly burdensome and illogical to require the State to leave the evidence in place while it secures a warrant to support the necessary seizure.
But this exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement requires a dash of kismet and a dollop of good luck: law enforcement must be in the right place, at the right time, to discover and seize the evidence. If they are not, then they cannot.
Can you receive a term of life imprisonment for forcing someone to accompany you to a different room in their own house?: Justice Scalia and a unanimous Supreme Court say “yes” in Whitfield v. United States of America, (though to be fair, I should note that Mr. Whitfield had just tried to rob a bank).
18 U.S.C. 2113 (e) has a long and venerable history, even by the storied standards of the federal criminal code. It was originally enacted in 1934 in response to “an outbreak of bank robberies committed by John Dillinger and others” Carter v. United States of America, 530 U.S. 255, 280 (2000) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
Update on Missouri v. McNeely: Supreme Court Holds Against Warrantless Blood Tests (Usually).
We wrote in February about the issue pending before the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely: whether police can dispense with a search warrant and draw blood from an individual suspected of driving while intoxicated.
Well, in April, the Supreme Court ruled and in a decision authored by Justice Sotomayor held that usually police must obtain warrants in such situations.
Can Federal Judges Play Any Role in Plea Negotiations? The Rules Say “No”, But What Should the Remedy Be If the Rule is Broken?
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) is clear. It states that federal judges “must not participate” in plea discussions between a defendant and the United States. There are sound policy reasons that support such a strong line. There is an inherent friction between the roles of judge and participant in plea negotiations. The involvement of a district court judge or Magistrate-Judge in what is by nature a rather adversarial process could easily be perceived a coercive by a defendant, especially if the judge comments, even in passing, on the case’s eventual outcome or the quality of the evidence.
Duane Morris partner Eric Breslin will moderate “Brave New World: What the Government’s New War on Computer Crimes Means for Privacy Interests” at the American Bar Association (ABA) Criminal Justice Section’s Fourth Annual Prescription for Criminal Justice Forensics. The panel will occur on Friday, June 7, 2013 from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.