The government unlawfully placed a GPS device on defendant’s car and two days later stopped him. It argued in the district court a lack of standing, which prevailed there, and then conceded they were wrong on appeal. The constitutional violation was flagrant. Attenuation of a traffic stop is argued and rejected as having only slight value for the government. United States v. Terry, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33617 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018). (Criticized some in Orin Kerr, Volokh Conspiracy: Installing GPS Devices, Getting Warrants, and the Exclusionary Rule, An interesting new decision from the Fourth Circuit — although I’m not sure it’s right.
Pro se plaintiffs just don’t seem to get this: “The Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments lack money-mandating provisions, thereby precluding this court’s jurisdiction. Insofar as the Fourth Amendment protects against searches and seizures, it is not money mandating.” Darling v. United States, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1592 (Nov. 30, 2018).