Georgia has allowed video conferencing search warrant application for years. The statute requires a recording, but the federal courts have never held that a failure to record violates the Fourth Amendment when a state search warrant ends up in federal court. See, e.g., United States v. Gordon, 686 Fed. Appx. 702 (11th Cir. 2017). United States v. Hunt, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230558 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 2, 2021). (So, even if the state courts would suppress, and there aren\u2019t any state cases under the statute on Lexis, the federal courts won\u2019t because the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement does not mandate a recording.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that a sex offender compliance check was unreasonable is rejected. It was reasonable. The fact an officer was rude doesn\u2019t state a claim. Simpson v. Mayer, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229909 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 1, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause for the search warrant, and, even if not, the plain view exception led the seizure. Finally, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Morgan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228710 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Georgia has allowed video conferencing search warrant application for years. The statute requires a recording, but the federal courts have never held that a failure to record violates the Fourth Amendment when a state search warrant ends up in federal … Continue reading