CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

The Superior Court of San Francisco imposes electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. Because it’s essentially a contract between the defendant and court, it’s consent to EM for release. It also does not violate state separation of powers. Conditions of release are a core judicial function. Simon v. City & Cty. of S.F., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9657 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) (2-1).

Public hospital ER staff’s “routine inventory” of belongings of an accident victim was a private search that found methamphetamine. State v. Swaringen, 2025 S.C. App. LEXIS 30 (Apr. 23, 2025).*

Property seized for a criminal case can’t be returned while the case is ongoing. In re Search of 7319 Crow Canyon Ave., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78036 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2025);* In re Search of A 2017 Black Dodge Charger, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78044 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2025).*

Striking the alleged offending paragraph from the affidavit for warrant still leaves probable cause. Therefore, no ineffective assistance on this Franks claim. Ward v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77988 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Inventory, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.