Pretrial GPS monitoring that can tell when the accused is at his attorney\u2019s office doesn\u2019t violate the right to counsel, and it\u2019s reasonable when merely monitoring whether defendant is abiding by her pretrial travel restrictions. State v. Troconis, 2020 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1057 (Sept. 23, 2020):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The fact that the office of adult probation may be aware of Troconis’ location via GPS is expressly permitted by both the practice book and General Statutes \u00a7 54-64a(c)(8). Such electronic monitoring by judicial branch employees in order to ensure a defendant’s compliance with court-ordered conditions of pre-trial release is not the functional equivalent of GPS surveillance of a defendant who may be the subject of a criminal investigation by law enforcement. Whereas the latter type of electronic monitoring requires the issuance of a search warrant; see United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012); this type of post-arrest, pretrial monitoring does not, as it serves a completely different and entirely lawful purpose; specifically, that the defendant remains compliant with her necessary travel restrictions. United States v. Lopez, United States District Court, Docket No. 2:16-cr-00265-GMN-CWH-2 (GMN) (D.Nev. June 05, 2019). Troconis’ daily whereabouts are not being shared with law enforcement, and the court sees no meaningful restriction on an attorney’s ability to properly advise a defendant subject to pretrial electronic monitoring. Moreover, such monitoring does not allow probation officers access to any of the content of the defendant’s communications with counsel or any third parties, whether privileged or otherwise.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Not unlike an out-of-district federal defendant who has to get travel permission to go to his or her attorney’s office for trial preparation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pretrial GPS monitoring that can tell when the accused is at his attorney\u2019s office doesn\u2019t violate the right to counsel, and it\u2019s reasonable when merely monitoring whether defendant is abiding by her pretrial travel restrictions. State v. Troconis, 2020 Conn. … Continue reading