S.D.N.Y.: No REP in one’s talking to oneself in a building elevator that security cameras picked up

Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in talking to himself in his building elevator. Therefore, Title III didn’t apply. He knew there was video recording but not audio. “While in the elevator, Plaintiff writes that that is when he said to himself that he ‘shot him in the face should’ve killed him.’” Rainey v. Ortyl, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203507 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025).

Plaintiff sued a law enforcement officer for following him into his house and Tasing him. The facts pled defeat qualified immunity because this violated clearly established law. Dukes v. Sheriff of Levy Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26953 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2025).*

The search of defendant’s motel room was valid by probation search waiver. United States v. Perry, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204239 (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2025).*

“For the reasons detailed below, the Court finds that Trooper Show did not have reasonable suspicion that Defendants had committed a traffic violation but did have reasonable suspicion that Defendants were engaged in drug trafficking, thereby allowing him lawfully to conduct the stop.” United States v. Loya, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204086 (D. Or. Oct. 16, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.