W.D.N.Y.: Mere allegation the private search was expanded fails; def has to show something

Defendant alleges that NCMEC or the police expanded a private search. “However, Defendant concedes that he has no knowledge or evidence that either NCMEC or the police expanded the scope of the Facebook search. … Therefore, Defendant cannot assert that the Fourth Amendment is, in fact, implicated.” United States v. Young, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190017 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2021).

“At that point, Deputy Morten had enough information to issue a traffic citation but instead prolonged the stop on the basis of his knowledge of Larson’s prior convictions and his observing movements consistent with concealing an object under the front passenger seat, witnessing Larson’s ‘jumpy’ and ‘evasive’ behavior, and learning of their indirect route and suspicious sightseeing justification. We conclude these factors support the finding that there was ‘ample, competent evidence in the record … that raised reasonable suspicion’ to expand the stop into a drug investigation.” State v. Marsolek, 2021 ND 175, 2021 N.D. LEXIS 175 (Sept. 30, 2021).*

Admissions a defendant made to the officer asking questions recorded by bodycam are not private communications under the wiretap statute. Mally v. State, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 877 (Sept. 30, 2021) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.