CA6: Realtime ping information didn’t require a warrant

“Perry first challenges the validity of the search warrants for call and location data from his two cellphones. Law-enforcement officers generally need a warrant to conduct a ‘search’ that intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. … But a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his location while moving in public or ‘in the real-time location data that their cellular telephones transmit.’ Thus, the officers’ use of Perry’s real-time location data was not a Fourth Amendment search, and so they did not need a warrant to obtain it. And for the same reason, we need not address the validity of those warrants to hold that the district court rightly denied Perry’s supplemental motion to suppress. …” The traffic stop was also valid. United States v. Perry, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26842 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).

Handcuffing defendant was reasonable. He was bigger than the officer, and the officer was outnumbered at the scene. United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26843 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).*

Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege his excessive force claim. Ellar v. City of Mesa, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Excessive force, GPS / Tracking Data, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.