DC: PO’s turning over supervisee’s GPS tracking to police not unreasonable

Defendant on probation in D.C. was supervised by the Court Supervision and Offender Services Agency. After he violated terms of probation, he was placed on GPS monitoring. It was not unreasonable for CSOSA to share that information with D.C. Metro police. Atchison v. United States, 2021 D.C. App. LEXIS 233 (Aug. 19, 2021) (following United States v. Jackson, 214 A.3d 464 (D.C. 2019)).

This search warrant for animal cruelty included searching for dead dogs. It did not mention digging them up. Executing officers did that. The 49 counts were based on live and allegedly mistreated dogs. If it was error, it was harmless in light of all the evidence, including body cam images of the live animals. People v. Caswell, 2021 COA 111, 2021 Colo. App. LEXIS 1163 (Aug. 19, 2021).*

The basis for the claimed motion to suppress that was never filed was unsettled. But it doesn’t matter here: “Moreover, even if the decision not to file a motion to suppress was unreasonable, it is highly unlikely that even a successful suppression motion would have resulted in a different outcome here because that evidence was not necessary to the government’s case against Lucas.” Therefore, no prejudice. United States v. Lucas, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157049 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 19, 2021.*

This entry was posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.