CA9: No REP in data in planted GPS device

Downloading data from a planted GPS device violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. McNeely v. Loeschner, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9537 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). The facts of the planted device are below: McNeely v. City of Sparks, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85647 (D. Nev. May 13, 2024).*

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information in a police database, so one’s name can be run. Brown v. Thornell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75494 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2025).*

This court previously held in 2001 that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to sentencing. Here it doesn’t apply to Miranda violations at sentencing either. United States v. Fowler, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9514 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025).*

There was enough of a factual dispute for a jury to find that the force was excessive. Summary judgment properly denied. Est. of Harmon v. Salt Lake City, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9512 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025).* Same for shooting of a pet dog. Love v. Grashorn, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9515 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, GPS / Tracking Data, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.