Pole camera surveillance of defendant may have been intrusive, and the court is sensitive to the ability of a pole camera to invade on privacy, but this case turns on defendant being on supervised release with a lower expectation of privacy. United States v. Stefanyuk, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110080 (D.S.D. July 2, 2018).
“Trooper Hamilton articulated specific facts that led to this conclusion, such as Cotto’s traveling in a vehicle with out-of-state license plates on a known drug trafficking route; the empty fast food and drink containers strewn in the vehicle, which indicate ‘hard travel’ where the driver does not want to stop; Cotto’s inability to multitask in forgetting to close his door; Cotto’s physical appearance such as, pulsating carotid artery, trouble breathing, trembling hands, sweating while in air conditioning, avoiding eye contact, and quivering stomach; and, Cotto’s giving inconsistent and implausible answers to Trooper Hamilton’s questions. These facts taken together established that Trooper Hamilton had a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that criminal activity was afoot and he was justified in calling in a canine unit to resolve his suspicions after Cotto refused permission to search the vehicle.” United States v. Cotto, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109965 (E.D. La. July 2, 2018).*