IA: State constitution does not protect against wired CI, following White

The defendant’s request to hold under the state constitution that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a wired CI’s car is rejected, following United States v. White; if the CI could testify to the conversation as a witness, why should there be special protection against recording it? State v. Loh, 2010 ND 66, 780 N.W.2d 719 (2010):

[*P16] While our state constitution may provide greater protections than the United States Constitution, State v. Wanzek, 1999 ND 163, P 19, 598 N.W.2d 811, the defendant has provided no separate analysis of our state constitution or its history. Under the facts and circumstance of this case, we are not persuaded that our state constitution was violated by law enforcement’s warrantless electronic monitoring of Loh’s face-to-face conversations with the confidential informant when the conversations and drug transactions occurred in the informant’s car and the informant consented to the police’s electronic monitoring. Here, as in Kummer, there is no dispute that the confidential informant was cooperating with police, was aware of the nature of the transactions, and consented to the electronic monitoring of the conversations with Loh.

Defendant fails in his Franks challenge—the misstatements were not material, there was probable cause without them, and the good faith exception would not require suppression anyway. United States v. Craig, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34809 (N.D.Ind. April 7, 2010).*

An officer responding to a noise complaint at 2 a.m. found several people on the front step of defendant’s house. When the door was opened, the light from inside reflected off a plastic bag stashed in the gap between the step and the house. It was in plain view, and using a flashlight after the first glimpse was not a search under Lee. State v. Gates, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 266 (April 8, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.