Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a computer given him by Goodwill for whom he worked while he was living in a halfway house. He was still an inmate of the BOP. \u201cThere is no reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in contraband brought into a Bureau-of-Prisons-controlled facility as a matter of law. The Bureau of Prisons is empowered to \u2018summarily seize any object introduced into a Federal penal or correctional facility or possessed by an inmate of such a facility in violation of a rule, regulation or order promulgated by the Director, and such object shall be forfeited to the United States. 18 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 4012. Smith was prohibited from returning to GEO with anything he did not take with him when leaving GEO. 28 C.F.R. \u00a7 570.38(c)(10). Yet Smith returned to GEO with a laptop computer and hotspot adaptor he did not possess when he left GEO.\u201d Smith v. Goodwill of the S.F. Bay, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205843 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[W]here probable cause exists, a warrantless public arrest based on an investigative alert or an instruction to arrest from the investigating officer is constitutional, so long as it is supported by probable cause. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Mr. Streater’s motion to quash his arrest and suppress the evidence.\u201d People v. Streater, 2023 IL App (1st) 220640, 2023 Ill. App. LEXIS 416 (Nov. 17, 2023).* [This should not be a remarkable holding, but it recognizes a split in the Illinois appellate courts.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a computer given him by Goodwill for whom he worked while he was living in a halfway house. He was still an inmate of the BOP. \u201cThere is no reasonable or legitimate … Continue reading