VI: GPS monitoring for pretrial release can be reasonable; here it was consented to as well

The VI code and rules of criminal procedure provide for electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. GPS tracking is a search and involves a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy and would be reasonable if justified. Here it was consented to. Berthier v. People of the V.I., 2024 VI 35, 2024 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 39 (Dec. 5, 2024).

Defendant’s stop was based on a window tint violation which the trial court didn’t find credible. Then the stop was unreasonably extended when the officer thought defendant was someone else they were interest in but he wasn’t. State v. Mathis, 2024-Ohio-5707 (8th Dist. Dec. 5, 2024).*

“[W]hile there was a misleading statement in an affidavit, Defendant falls short of making a substantial preliminary showing that the misrepresentation amounted to a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. Additionally, Defendant fails to make a substantial preliminary showing that the misleading statement was material to the Magistrate Judge’s finding of probable cause.” United States v. Amado, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219893 (D. Conn. Dec. 4, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.