The cell phone tracking order was issued by a state court judge and it complied with the Fourth Amendment. The fact it was an \u201corder\u201d and not a \u201cwarrant\u201d is a meaningless argument. A warrant can be used to locate people, not just things under Warden v. Hayden under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Patrick, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179522 (E.D. Wis. September 30, 2014).<\/p>\n
The credibility of the officer is judged by his testimony on the stand and not the prehearing brief submitted by the government. The officer is found credible despite the differences in that and the brevity of his initial reports. United States v. Short, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179581 (E.D. Tenn. October 23, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Just because defendant\u2019s state court case was nolle prossed before he was federally charged, he wasn\u2019t deprived of a forum to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim, so there is no due process violation. Moody v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1974 (M.D. Fla. January 8, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The cell phone tracking order was issued by a state court judge and it complied with the Fourth Amendment. The fact it was an \u201corder\u201d and not a \u201cwarrant\u201d is a meaningless argument. A warrant can be used to locate … Continue reading