D.D.C.: Protective order issued to keep def from seeing body camera videos in discovery

There were several body camera videos relating to this case as well as the search and seizure. The issue here is the scope of a protective order to keep defendant from seeing. The government met its burden of showing good cause for the protective order because the defendant was accused of robbing a GrubHub driver on the street and had his cell phone number. The victim should not be further identified until trial. United States v. Dixon, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20576 (D.D.C. Feb. 8, 2019).*

The CI’s information was properly corroborated to show probable cause. United States v. Etienne, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18595 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2019).*

CSLI obtained by court order in 2017 was valid under the good faith exception. United States v. Turner, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220928 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 20, 2018),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18089 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 5, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Body cameras, Cell site location information, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.