CA7: Franks does not apply to emergency cell phone pings

During the George Floyd murder unrest, defendant told an acquaintance he was traveling to Wisconsin with a machine gun to kill and loot. The acquaintance told law enforcement. They obtained ping information based on exigency, which was valid. Also, Franks does not apply to emergency requests for ping information because it’s not a search warrant. United States v. Karmo, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19047 (7th Cir. July 31, 2024).

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room, at least where the police did not assure defendant there was. Thus, the conversation with a co-defendant was properly admitted at trial. Marotta v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 5955 (Fla. 4th DCA July 31, 2024).

Defendant claims an unreasonable seizure and questioning. It was harmless. “For the reasons below, we conclude that the jury’s verdict here was ‘surely unattributable’ to the claimed error.” State v. Zielinski, 2024 Minn. LEXIS 403 (July 31, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.