CA7: 13 months of pole camera surveillance was not unreasonable

Thirteen months of pole camera surveillance of the public areas outside defendant’s home were reasonable under United States v. Tuggle, 4 F.4th 505, 511 (7th Cir. 2021), and the court declines to reconsider that case. The officers saw no more than ones on a stakeout [not to mentioned digital storage of everything and facial recognition of others]. United States v. House, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28045 (7th Cir. Nov. 5, 2024). Update: techdirt: Seventh Circuit Again Says Long-Term Pole Camera Surveillance Isn’t Unconstitutional by Tim Cushing

Defendant’s patdown during a traffic stop was justified. He didn’t stop immediately, and after he did he was ordered out of the car and the officer could see a bulge in the pocket of his hoody. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200623 (W.D. La. Oct. 18, 2024).*

Defendant persuades the court that nexus was lacking for the search warrant for defendant’s Facebook information, but it’s harmless on the totality. State v. Mitchell, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 493 (Nov. 4, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Nexus, Pole cameras, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.