CA11: Def claims he was talking with a VA clinician, but it was a CI; no REP in conversation

Defendant was ultimately accused of theft of government funds and false statements about his VA benefits. A phone call with an informant was recorded. He claims he thought it was a clinician with whom he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the district court said no, and that’s affirmed. United States v. Hoover, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30731 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*

This FTC subpoena for bank records is permitted under the Fourth Amendment. FTC v. Jones, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205887 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204882 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2023).*

The exclusionary rule does not apply in juvenile revocations of the adult portion of the suspended sentence. In re R.C., 2023-Ohio-4149 (1st Dist. Nov. 17, 2023).*

Defendant was the subject of a 14 month drug investigation culminating in the challenged search warrant. There was probable cause and no material omissions. Some information might be called stale, but the ongoing crime kept it all current. State v. Taylor, 2023-Ohio-4160, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 3996 (5th Dist. Nov. 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Staleness, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.