Pole camera observation for 13 days violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. The state\u2019s search and seizure provision is interpreted the same as the Fourth Amendment. State v. Garrett, 2026 Kan. App. LEXIS 20 (May 22, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The pictures in the record support that defendant\u2019s windshield was cracked so bad it impair the driver\u2019s ability to see and justified the stop. United States v. Witt, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14845 (8th Cir. May 26, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no state constitutional reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with a law enforcement officer posing as a minor for a sexual liaison. State v. Aquino-Martinez, 2026 Haw. App. LEXIS 159 (Apr. 7, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stopping at a stop sign and then signaling violated state law and justified this stop. Porteus v. N.D. DOT, 2026 ND 103 (May 22, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pole camera observation for 13 days violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. The state\u2019s search and seizure provision is interpreted the same as the Fourth Amendment. State v. Garrett, 2026 Kan. App. LEXIS 20 (May 22, 2026). The pictures in … Continue reading