IN: Refuses to find any reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone records under state constitution

Defendant didn’t pursue an interlocutory appeal of his suppression motion on telephone records being seized in violation of the state constitution. Therefore, he waived it by objecting at trial. Nevertheless, the court finds that he would lose on the state constitutional issue, even if preserved. McCowan v. State, 10 N.E.3d 522 (Ind. App. 2014) (ordered published June 10, 2014). Make note: More telling is that this issue was deemed waived, and then the court went out of its way to hold against the defendant anyway. Litigating some forms of informational privacy will always remain a steep, uphill battle. If anything, just the long history of telephone records being subpoenable may be enough. Other information of more recent vintage? Maybe some headway can be made there.

A patfrisk of a backpack preliminary to a search of a car was unjustified by any objective criteria. Commonwealth v. Rutledge, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (July 25, 2014).*

An established and proven reliable CI coupled with a controlled buy is reasonable suspicion. United States v. Gonsalves, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101805 (D. Mass. July 25, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, State constitution, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.