DC: Def on supervision before sentencing had no REP in GPS monitoring

Defendant was on high intensity supervision with GPS for his current conviction, but he hadn’t yet been sentenced. Officers didn’t need a warrant to obtain his GPS data. “This case involves a defendant who had been adjudicated guilty, and PSA was responsible for supervising his compliance with release conditions, which generally include a prohibition against violating the law and in this case included GPS monitoring.” White v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 311 (Sep. 3, 2026).

Trial courts have the discretion to reopen suppression hearings, despite the rules and statutes not saying so. Failure to reopen is not an appealable order. State v. Holt, 2026 Minn. App. LEXIS 369 (Sep. 1, 2026).*

An officer doesn’t need a tint meter reading before making a stop. It need only be a reasonable observation. United States v. Smith, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198735 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 2, 2026).*

The affidavit for warrant was particular and described the whole house. While others lived there, the affidavit showed reason to believe defendant was in control of the whole place. United States v. Mannan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199195 (D.N.J. Sep. 2, 2026).*

This entry was posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.