CA11: Days of constant pole camera surveillance didn’t state a 4A claim

“As to the pole cameras, we hold that their use did not violate Williamson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The pole cameras surveilled areas exposed to the public, and the fact that they recorded non-stop is of little relevance—the Constitution does not forbid the government from using technology to conduct lawful investigations more efficiently.” United States v. Gregory, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3431 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2025).* (This issue was overruled without even citing a case.)

“Here, in considering Canales’s motion to suppress, the trial court only addressed the consent Canales gave at the time he was read the implied consent notice. The trial court does not mention, address, or analyze the circumstances surrounding Canales’s blood draw and whether he gave actual consent to the blood draw after suffering the panic attack and receiving medical care. Accordingly, we remand this case for the trial court to address whether Canales gave actual consent to the procuring and testing of his blood, which requires a determination of the voluntariness of the consent under the totality of the circumstances including the circumstances surrounding Canales’s blood draw.” Canales v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 55 (Feb. 14, 2025).*

Petitioner’s name was in the search warrant but the property searched wasn’t his and he never stayed there, so he lacked standing. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the search. Carpenter v. State, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 90 (Feb. 14, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.