CA8: Police placed a hidden camera across from def’s apt door and used information from it in showing PC for SW; there was PC without it

“Darron Mayo appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a hidden camera police officers placed across from his apartment door. Officers used some of the evidence obtained from the camera in a probable cause affidavit supporting an application for a search warrant of Mayo’s apartment. We affirm the district court because the probable cause affidavit was sufficient when ignoring evidence gathered from the hidden camera.” United States v. Mayo, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7305 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2024).

On de novo review, the stop and search of the car in which defendant was a passenger was reasonable. Search incident in a bank fraud arrest for possession of credit cards of others was reasonable. The state’s argument that first suppression issue was forfeited for not being presented in the trial court is acknowledged but not decided. People v. Hatcher, 2024 IL App (1st) 220455, 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 722 (Mar. 27, 2024).*

Defendant’s Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because he doesn’t even allege that the outcome of the case would have been different if a motion to suppress had been granted. United States v. Foreman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54477 (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.