Stationary video surveillance outside an apartment building of common areas is not at all analogous to Carpenter. “The defendant urges the court to compare his facts to those in Whitaker. Dkt. No. 223 at 9. The defendant argues that a video surveillance camera is analogous to a drug-sniffing dog—a ‘“sophisticated sensing device not available to the general public.”’ Id. (quoting Whitaker, 820 F.3d at 854). [¶] The comparison is not convincing.” United States v. Kelly, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82507 (E.D. Wis. May 16, 2019).
Defendant’s connection to the property for standing purposes was less than tenuous. A six second call from the house was about all he could show. United States v. Jackson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82858 (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2019).*