CA5: No REP of what one does in his own yard from surveillance with a 20x zoom camera

Plaintiff was an air base employee who resisted a job transfer by claiming a back injury that prevented him from driving 30 minutes to work. A private investigator was hired to watch plaintiff, and they videotaped him outdoors riding a tractor and working in the yard. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy from what he did outdoors, even from a 20x zoom. Ryan v. Kelmar & Assocs., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2821 (5th Cir. February 12, 2009) (unpublished).

Blood sample already drawn by an authorized person could be seized by court order. People v. Elysee, 2009 NY Slip Op 1155, 2009 N.Y. LEXIS 15 (February 17, 2009).*

Examining all the information in the affidavit for search warrant, there was a fair probability that the information sought would be found. State v. Craft, 2009 Ohio 675, 181 Ohio App. 3d 150, 908 N.E.2d 476 (12th Dist. 2009)*:

[*P14] In examining the affidavit, as we did in Harry, we found that when we viewed all of the information together — which was gleaned from the informants and an anonymous complainant, as well as the corroborating information from the stakeout and other investigation conducted by the deputies — was “sufficient to show there was fair probability that marijuana would be found at 225 Cereal Avenue.” Id. at P21-22.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.