M.D.Ala.: Court decides geofence warrant on GFE without getting to 4A merits

Defendant was a suspect in a series of 35 carjackings where the car was shortly thereafter used in an armed robbery. A geofence warrant was used to track defendant at the scenes of the robberies. After discussing the case law on geofence warrants, “based on the circumstances of this case, the undersigned sees no need to journey into the quagmire of geofence search warrants because even if Davis had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched pursuant to the Google II Warrant, the Leon good faith exception applies. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 913. ‘[T]he exclusionary rule does not apply when the police conduct a search in “objectively reasonable reliance” on a warrant later held invalid.’ Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 239 (2011) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 922).” United States v. Davis, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134979 (M.D. Ala. July 1, 2022), adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134130 (M.D. Ala. July 28, 2022). [And, once again, the good faith exception stymies development of Fourth Amendment law.]

The smell of burnt marijuana coming from a car is probable cause even with medical marijuana. State v. Grant, 2022-Ohio-2601, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 2466 (2d Dist. July 29, 2022).

A protective sweep of a house was reasonable where the arrest was inside. United States v. Cedillo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132496 (E.D. Tenn. July 26, 2022);* United States v. Ackerman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134980 (N.D. Iowa July 29, 2022)* (also an issue of consent because help was sought finding a cell phone inside).

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, geofence, Good faith exception, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.