Pole camera observations from the street ended up in a wiretap application. Carpenter provides no relief. The only observations were the comings and goings from the house for which there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. “Because the Defendant has identified no facts suggesting that the pole camera in this case recorded areas or behavior over which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy, the motion to suppress the pole camera footage will be denied.” United States v. Edmonds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19023 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 5, 2020).
“After reviewing the footage and the testimony, we agree with the district court. The body camera footage is inconclusive, but it does not contradict the lieutenant’s testimony. To address credibility determinations, we examine extrinsic evidence for contradictions in the officer’s testimony.” The trial court found the officer’s testimony on reasonable suspicion credible. State v. Stoppelmoor, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 140 (Feb. 5, 2020).*