An Oakland officer\u2019s accessing the local Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) database was not an illegal search nor a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That information helped to provide information to enable police to apply for a GPS tracking warrant on defendant\u2019s car which was issued with probable cause. United States v. Rubin, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161047 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 25, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Generally, the exclusionary rule doesn\u2019t apply to sentencing. Defendant pled guilty waiving his Fourth Amendment claims, but argued in habeas that an illegal search was used at sentencing. But, he doesn\u2019t even show a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Cole v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160834 (N.D.Tex. July 14, 2021), adopted, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159323 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 24, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A fascinating case on issue preclusion. A prior grant of a motion to suppress and a dismissal without prejudice and then a reindictment wasn\u2019t binding now because it wasn\u2019t integral to the prior outcome. United States v. Koerber<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 25749 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2021).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" An Oakland officer\u2019s accessing the local Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) database was not an illegal search nor a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That information helped to provide information to enable police to apply for a GPS tracking warrant … Continue reading