Pole camera surveillance of defendant may have been intrusive, and the court is sensitive to the ability of a pole camera to invade on privacy, but this case turns on defendant being on supervised release with a lower expectation of privacy. United States v. Stefanyuk, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110080 (D.S.D. July 2, 2018).<\/p>\n
\u201cTrooper Hamilton articulated specific facts that led to this conclusion, such as Cotto’s traveling in a vehicle with out-of-state license plates on a known drug trafficking route; the empty fast food and drink containers strewn in the vehicle, which indicate \u2018hard travel\u2019 where the driver does not want to stop; Cotto’s inability to multitask in forgetting to close his door; Cotto’s physical appearance such as, pulsating carotid artery, trouble breathing, trembling hands, sweating while in air conditioning, avoiding eye contact, and quivering stomach; and, Cotto’s giving inconsistent and implausible answers to Trooper Hamilton’s questions. These facts taken together established that Trooper Hamilton had a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that criminal activity was afoot and he was justified in calling in a canine unit to resolve his suspicions after Cotto refused permission to search the vehicle.\u201d United States v. Cotto, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109965 (E.D. La. July 2, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pole camera surveillance of defendant may have been intrusive, and the court is sensitive to the ability of a pole camera to invade on privacy, but this case turns on defendant being on supervised release with a lower expectation of … Continue reading