CA9: No standing in pole camera surveillance of house of another

Defendant doesn’t have standing to challenge prolonged pole camera surveillance of the property of another. Also, there was reasonable suspicion on the totality including collective knowledge to extend defendant’s stop for a drug dog. United States v. Cruz, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34975 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2021).

2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is rejected under Stone. Mumme v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225243 (D.Me. Nov. 23, 2021).*

Plaintiff’s federal claim that a search was conducted unreasonably was essentially litigated in the New York court of claims to conclusion, so it’s barred. Stegemann v. Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34783 (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Pole cameras, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.