{"id":3697,"date":"2011-05-02T10:39:52","date_gmt":"2010-01-04T01:20:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-01T11:26:11","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3697","title":{"rendered":"OH9: GPS: Whether there is a REP in not having GPS hooked to car’s wiring needs to be decided"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant claimed that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy not to have a government planted GPS hooked up to the wiring of his car. The trial court did not decide this issue, and it is remanded for another hearing. State v. Dalton<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 6910, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5804 (9th Dist. December 30, 2009):<\/p>\n

[*P15] In his motion to suppress, Dalton argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the electrical system of his vehicle and that his “right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated when police wired the GPS tracking device into his vehicle’s electrical system in order to gain information on the travels and locations of the vehicle.” Therefore, Dalton was not only arguing that the information gathered from the GPS device amounted to an unlawful search and seizure, but also that the warrantless placement of the GPS device on his car was unconstitutional. Although, as we further explain below, we conclude that there is a second prong to the argument in Dalton’s motion to suppress that the trial court did not consider, we note that this argument is not drafted as clearly as it could have been. Dalton does not fully delineate before the trial court the distinction between placement of the GPS and the collection of the information from the device. In any event, the nuance has important legal implications and the trial court neglected to consider the second prong of Dalton’s argument.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was in jail on a child sex offense for four months when his wife discovered on their computer inappropriate pictures and a video clip. She took it to the police who searched it and charged defendant with video voyeurism in the making of the video clip. She had joint access or control, and there were no limitations on her usage. State v. Aschinger<\/a>, 149 Idaho 53, 232 P.3d 831 (2009), review denied, 2010 Ida. LEXIS 86 (Idaho, May 11, 2010).*<\/p>\n

Officer\u2019s personal observation of defendant in a hallway after a call that a man with a gun was beating on the door led him to ask whether defendant had a gun. He said he did and reached for it, and the officer pulled his weapon. Terry was complied with. United States v. Savage, 677 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Pa. 2009)*:<\/p>\n

Here, police saw Savage just moments after receiving a report of a woman complaining of an armed man banging on her door. Savage was the only person in the hallway, and he was exactly where the woman indicated that he would be located, doing exactly what the woman indicated that he would be doing. The officer’s personal observation of Savage’s banging on the door and the corroboration of the informant’s tip established reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. Also relevant is the fact that the woman was reporting a crime in progress. This allowed the officers to arrive quickly enough to witness the complained of activity (Savage banging on the door).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}