OH9: GPS tracking previously imposed for parole wasn’t a violation of 4A

GPS tracking as a condition of parole was based in substantial part on findings in a prior sentencing involving defendant, and that did not violate the Fourth Amendment in imposing those release conditions. That GPS information was used in this case, and it wasn’t unreasonable. State v. Hendon, 2018-Ohio-1284, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1409 (9th Dist. Apr. 4, 2018).*

Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied without a hearing or response from the state. The affidavit for the search warrant shows probable cause in its four corners. State v. Hale, 2018 Del. Super. LEXIS 153 (Apr. 6, 2018).*

Defendant filed a 2255 against defense counsel for allegedly being ineffective in pursuing his motion to suppress, and it was denied in a comprehensive opinion. The COA is denied. United States v. Hopson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8734 (10th Cir. Apr. 6, 2018).*

This entry was posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.