CA2: 50 days of pole camera surveillance outside a business wasn’t unreasonable search

A pole camera outside defendant’s business for 50 days was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Harry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2025).

Defendant was improperly denied a hearing. The codefendant had a suppression hearing and lost, and this defendant didn’t have standing as to that one. What transpired there showed defendant couldn’t prevail here, even though he wasn’t participating, because he had no standing to ask questions. A 34-day delay in seeking a search warrant after seizure of cell phones wasn’t unreasonable. United States v. Pierce, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38690 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2025).*

Defendant had no standing in a trash container where work clothes were stashed with his DNA on it. People v. Contreras, 2025 NY Slip Op 50289(U), 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1213 (Queens Co. Feb. 10, 2025).*

Granted that there was a misstatement in the affidavit, the reconstructed affidavit still provides probable cause. United States v. Clark, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41079 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.