{"id":50553,"date":"2021-11-26T08:13:00","date_gmt":"2021-11-26T13:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=50553"},"modified":"2021-11-26T08:13:00","modified_gmt":"2021-11-26T13:13:00","slug":"ca9-no-standing-in-pole-camera-surveillance-of-house-of-another","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=50553","title":{"rendered":"CA9: No standing in pole camera surveillance of house of another"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Defendant doesn\u2019t have standing to challenge prolonged pole camera surveillance of the property of another. Also, there was reasonable suspicion on the totality including collective knowledge to extend defendant\u2019s stop for a drug dog. <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/memoranda\/2021\/11\/24\/20-10114.pdf\">United States v. Cruz<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34975 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>2255 petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim is rejected under Stone. Mumme v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225243 (D.Me. Nov. 23, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Plaintiff\u2019s federal claim that a search was conducted unreasonably was essentially litigated in the New York court of claims to conclusion, so it\u2019s barred. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ca2.uscourts.gov\/decisions\/isysquery\/53aea9c7-e05a-4448-a2b3-ad84f8cb667b\/14\/doc\/20-3316_so.pdf#xml=https:\/\/www.ca2.uscourts.gov\/decisions\/isysquery\/53aea9c7-e05a-4448-a2b3-ad84f8cb667b\/14\/hilite\/\">Stegemann v. Rensselaer County Sheriff&#8217;s Office<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 34783 (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant doesn\u2019t have standing to challenge prolonged pole camera surveillance of the property of another. Also, there was reasonable suspicion on the totality including collective knowledge to extend defendant\u2019s stop for a drug dog. United States v. Cruz, 2021 U.S. &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=50553\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[126,92,34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-preclusion","category-pole-cameras","category-standing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50553","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=50553"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50553\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50554,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50553\/revisions\/50554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=50553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=50553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=50553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}