S.D.N.Y.: Surveillance does not have to be constant for PC to exist

Defendant was stopped because officers had reason to believe that he was transporting parts for ghost guns from New England to a gun show in Pennsylvania, and he was stopped in New York City. There is no constitutional requirement that he be under constant surveillance from one point to another as long as probable cause otherwise exists. United States v. Alcantara, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100224 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2023).

Defendant was known by police to sell automatic weapons. When he was seen in a parking lot handing over apparent rifle boxes, officers had probable cause. United States v. Kazmende, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100040 (N.D. Ga. May 17, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98820 (N.D. Ga. June 7, 2023).*

A search warrant was issued based on information from Baltimore’s aerial surveillance program. Subsequent litigation held it an unreasonable search. It does not serve the deterrent interests of the exclusionary rule to suppress here where the officers were objectively reasonable in their actions at the time. United States v. Cawthorn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99835 (D. Md. June 5, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.