Recording sounds in police car is not an unreasonable search. After defendant was placed in patrol car, he made a cellphone call, and the patrol car’s recording equipment recorded his end of the call. He had no objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the back seat of the patrol car because he could see the camera. While the Sixth Circuit has not addressed the issue, other courts have, and they conclude there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the back of a patrol car, even if the defendant thought that his words would not be overheard. United States v. Jones, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63578 (S.D. Ohio September 6, 2006).<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and he refused to cooperate with the officer. The officer grabbed his shirt trying to control him, and slipped out of the shirt and fled on foot. That was an abandonment of the car. United States v. Payne, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63772 (W.D. Mich. September 7, 2006).<\/p>\n
Minor mistakes in officer’s testimony and reports did not undermine his credibility with the trial court. United States v. Abernathy, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63724 (N.D. Ind. September 6, 2006).*<\/p>\n
There was a wealth of PC for defendant’s arrest on a kidnapping charge. The court does not even have to reach his Franks<\/em> challenge to the search of the car involved because he cannot make a threshold showing of standing to contest the search of the car. United States v. Encarnacion-Montero, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63622 (D. P.R. September 5, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading