CA6: SW for home DVR failed to allege criminal evidence would be found and violates 4A

There was a fire in a shed that was likely caught by defendant’s home surveillance camera. He declined to turn it over to investigators investigating the cause of the fire. They don’t even know that the fire was arson. The application relies on double and maybe triple uncorroborated hearsay that there might have been a criminal cause of the fire, but nothing apparent. The warrant for defendant’s DVR lacked probable cause to believe that a crime would be revealed. Also, probable cause is so lacking, the good faith exception does not apply. United States v. Waide, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3398 (6th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023).

There was probable cause defendant was reckless driving, and that justified the stop. United States v. Nicholl, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3397 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023).*

Officers saw a Snapchat video of defendant grilling in his yard with a gun. That was probable cause enough for a warrant, but they never bothered to get one. Their entry onto the curtilage violated the Fourth Amendment. Denial of suppression reversed. United States v. Banks, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3400 (7th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Probable cause, Video surveillance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.