CA7: It wasn’t a 4A violation to place a pole camera to look over def’s fence he built to hide his place knowing he was under surveillance

Defendant knew he was under surveillance by police, so he installed a wooden privacy fence around his business property. So, police put a pole camera so they could look over the fence. The pole camera didn’t need a warrant. United States v. Kendrick, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 20108 (7th Cir. July 9, 2026).

There was a substantial basis for defendant’s search warrant for fentanyl distribution from defendant’s home that led to overdose deaths. The trial court’s suppression order is reversed, so the good faith exception doesn’t even need to be considered. State v. Gardner, 2026 Kan. LEXIS 382 (July 10, 2026).*

The government fails to show that defendant’s backpack was subject to a warrantless search. It’s not a valid search incident: “ In contrast, here, the video evidence shows that Ranney had already been arrested and taken inside prior to the search, Ranney’s backpack was not next to him during the search, the initial search lasted several minutes, and the contents of the backpack were left on a table for almost two hours after the search.” As to inventory, this search served no valid administrative goals. The exclusionary rule applies. “But here, there was no warrant. Therefore, the good faith exception … [is] inapplicable.” United States v. Ranney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151177 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Inventory, Pole cameras, Probable cause, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.