OH4: Defendant didn’t have standing to challenge pole camera surveillance of friend’s house

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising a technical challenge that, at the time, was meritless but the law later changed. The exclusionary rule wouldn’t apply. He also lacked standing to challenge pole camera surveillance of somebody else’s house. State v. Tolbert, 2015-Ohio-4733, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4611 (4th Dist. Nov. 12, 2015).

Defendant’s stop was justified for following too close, and the conversation with him led to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Kash, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154830 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 16, 2015).*

Plain error review doesn’t work for a claim that officers didn’t see defendant actually consume alcohol when his condition pretty much showed he had. State v. Wells, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 919 (Nov. 16, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Pole cameras, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.