Defendant was on pretrial release on an unrelated state case. As a condition of release, he agreed to a GPS monitor by a private provider who reported to the court. The government used his location information to connect him to crimes while on release. He both had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements and he consented to it. And, \u201ceven if the use of the GPS ankle monitor constituted an unconstitutional search, the arrest warrant was based on separate, untainted evidence, and the officers executed the warrant in good faith.\u201d United States v. Mitchell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112424 (W.D. La. May 28, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer\u2019s drawing his weapon during a nighttime stop was not unreasonable considering he was alone and it didn\u2019t transform the stop into an arrest. Looking at the back seat was reasonable. The smell of marijuana then justified the vehicle search. United States v. Alvarez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14656 (11th Cir. June 13, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant wasn\u2019t entitled to a Miranda warning before implied consent to a BAC test. Watters v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 243 (June 13, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was on pretrial release on an unrelated state case. As a condition of release, he agreed to a GPS monitor by a private provider who reported to the court. The government used his location information to connect him to … Continue reading