NY3: No REP in parole GPS monitoring as to police

“Here, defendant’s affidavit in support of his motion to suppress contended that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy from a search and seizure by the police because, although he knew his location was being tracked by his parole officer through his ankle monitor as a condition of parole, he did not consent to the police tracking his location with such device. Even assuming defendant subjectively believed that the GPS tracking data collected by his state-issued ankle monitor was private — despite knowing that he was under constant monitoring as a condition of his parole — that expectation was not objectively reasonable or justiciable under the circumstances presented here.” People v. Smith, 2026 NY Slip Op 06356, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6566 (3d Dept. Oct. 29, 2026). [3 years 3½ months to decide this appeal]

On defendant’s motion to reconsider denial of his suppression motion, the failure to meet the Franks burden is reaffirmed. United States v. Williams, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247799 (E.D. La. Oct. 29, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.