NJ: Entering curtilage to plant GPS device on car exceeded tracking warrant and was suppressed

Police had an otherwise valid warrant to install a tracking device on defendant’s vehicle but in a public place. Instead, they entered the curtilage to install it there. This warrant execution violated the Fourth Amendment and state constitution. The tracking warrant is suppressed; there is no good faith exception in New Jersey. “The top of the driveway where the subject vehicle was parked was part of the curtilage of defendant’s home and was thus constitutionally protected—a conclusion the State does not dispute.” “We emphasize that it does not matter that the State Police did not appreciate the constitutional significance of entering onto defendant’s residential property.” Also, there is no good faith exception in New Jersey. State v. Johnson, 2025 N.J. Super. LEXIS 40 (June 3, 2025).

2255 petitioner’s unfiled Fourth Amendment claim makes no sense. Earquhart v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2025).* (Not exactly, but close enough.)

2255 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by Stone so no CoA. Bradley v. Corrigan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 13511 (6th Cir. June 2, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a gun defendant abandoned. United States v. Emerson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104983 (W.D. Okla. June 3, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.