D.Conn.: No REP in pole camera surveillance of def’s business’s front door

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in two months of pole camera surveillance of his business front door. Society would not recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy of what’s visible from the public street. United States v. Harry, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20312 (D.Conn. Feb. 4, 2022).

Defendant’s habeas claim is barred by Stone. On the merits, a warrant is not required to examine the recordings of a pole camera, and a pole camera is reasonable. Thomas v. Robinson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20625 (N.D.Ohio Feb. 4, 2022).*

A motion to suppress must be filed pretrial or it’s waived. A challenge after conviction is too late. United States v. Peachey, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20448 (D.S.D. Feb. 3, 2022).*

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

Comments are closed.