Defendant had a building that burned, and he moved out, conducting clean up and repairs. He was still considered by the FBI to be running drugs from there. The FBI installed a pole camera across the street that operated from 8-8 and later from 8am-9pm and still later from 6am to 11pm with continuous surveillance for a year and five weeks stored on a computer. First, defendant didn\u2019t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises after the fire because the building was so dilapidated and nothing of consequence of his remained there. Second, the use of the pole camera from across the street did not enable the government to see anything that passersby would not see. The length of surveillance did not make it unreasonable. United States v. Pratt, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84471 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant had a building that burned, and he moved out, conducting clean up and repairs. He was still considered by the FBI to be running drugs from there. The FBI installed a pole camera across the street that operated from … Continue reading