GA: Visitor has no REP in common areas of host’s home

The MV’s grandmother suspected defendant was molesting her granddaughter. She placed a video camera in the living room. It was obvious with a red light on it, and there was a sign that a camera was in use. He moved to suppress under state law that this was a recording in a private place. As to him, this was not a private place where he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. “Generally a visitor has no expectation of privacy in the common area of someone else’s home.” Pamplin v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 60 (Feb. 3, 2026).

Neither the exclusionary rule nor a harassment exception applies to supervised release. United States v. Velazquez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21748 (D. Utah Feb. 2, 2026).*

There was probable cause for the stop itself and then reasonable suspicion for a protective sweep under the seat of the car. United States v. Valentin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21851 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.