A violation of Rule 41 simply is not a Fourth Amendment violation. The case defendant cites isn\u2019t on point. \u201c[T]he defendant ignores the fact that, thirteen years after [that] decision, and almost thirty years before the search that resulted in the defendant’s prosecution, the Seventh Circuit addressed, and rejected, the argument he makes in this case.\u201d The court won\u2019t adopt Justice Alito\u2019s concurrence in Jones. \u201cThe defendant argues, based on the above language in Justice Alito’s concurrence, that this court should hold (a) that the question of whether a GPS warrant violates the Fourth Amendment should be based on the duration of the monitoring period, and (b) that monitoring periods of longer than four weeks (including the eight-week period authorized by the warrant in his case) violate the Fourth Amendment.\u201d No court has yet. United States v. Felton, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101727 (E.D.Wis. Aug. 2, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A violation of Rule 41 simply is not a Fourth Amendment violation. The case defendant cites isn\u2019t on point. \u201c[T]he defendant ignores the fact that, thirteen years after [that] decision, and almost thirty years before the search that resulted in … Continue reading