Defendant was on the state sex offender registry, and he was subject to compliance checks. Six officers from two agencies came to his house for his compliance review and they talked to him. They were lawfully on the premises under Jardines. Defendant consented to a search of his cell phone, but the record doesn’t say he consented to a forensics search on site. Vacated for more findings. Martinez v. State, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 584 (Oct. 19, 2018).
Defendant was in the Air Force, and he was arrested for patronizing a prostitute in Minot, ND. A search authorization for defendant’s camera was issued, but the court of appeals finds that it was without probable cause that any evidence relevant to an investigation for alleged child pornography would be found. Instead, they found pictures of defendant with adult women, one of whom might be a prostitute. The court also finds that the good faith exception and harmless error do not apply. United States v. Toledo, 2018 CCA LEXIS 497 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2018)* (memorandum).