D.Conn.: Pole camera on def’s house and curtilage didn’t show inside house, so it’s reasonable

IRS CID placed a pole camera observing defendant’s home and curtilage. It did not, however, show inside his house, and it was reasonable. United States v. Meade, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256690 (D. Conn. Nov. 9, 2026).

Plaintiff’s complaint stated enough to move forward that an ADA authorized his arrest allegedly without probable cause. Kelly v. City of Cochran, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 255232 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 6, 2026).*

There was plenty of information of communication among co-conspirators. “[W]e find that there was a nexus connecting the request to search Pickell’s communication gadgets and monies to the crime of theft, receiving stolen property and complicity in committing these crimes.” And, thus, probable cause. State v. Pickell, 2026-Ohio-4461 (4th Dist. Oct. 29, 2026).*

Based on collective knowledge, the officers had reasonable suspicion for this stop. United States v. Denton, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256435 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 9, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Collective knowledge, Pole cameras, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.