W.D.Pa.: Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated REP

Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated a reasonable expectation of privacy and likely Title III. Baker v. City of Pittsburgh, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2157 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025).

The search of defendant’s vehicle was impliedly consented to. Defendant was stopped by federal wildlife officers on land next to a military training area. Whether the place where the search occurred was a military installation and he was subject to search by being found there doesn’t matter. United States v. Rodgers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1449 (D. Alaska Jan. 6, 2025).*

Plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest case was barred by his state indictment. Dye v. Casey B., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235539 (D.S.C. Dec. 3, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 943 (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2025).*

There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for violating an order of protection. Klein v. Daniels, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1701 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 2, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Body cameras, Consent, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Surveillance technology. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.