NY, Bronx: A tracking warrant isn’t an eavesdropping warrant

Defendant had standing to challenge a tracking warrant on his phone despite the state’s claim that wasn’t the cause for his arrest. He was tracked. These were not eavesdropping warrants. “Because the location information provided pursuant to the warrant did not ‘contain[] the human voice,’ the use of the warrants to obtain the location information in this case was not ‘wiretapping’ within the meaning of Penal Law § 250.00(1) and CPL § 700.05(1).” People v. Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 21138, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2476 (Bronx Co. May 17, 2021)

Consent to search was obtained from the owner of the vehicle. (Whether defendant had standing as a repairman or not really doesn’t matter with this finding.) United States v. Santiago-De Jesus, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94336 (D. P.R. May 17, 2021).*

Since plaintiff was resisting being handcuffed and he was larger than the two officers, it was reasonable for them to take him down to handcuff him. Qualified immunity found. Tucker v. City of Shreveport, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14806 (5th Cir. May 18, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Qualified immunity, Standing, Tracking warrant. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.