Visual surveillance of plaintiff\u2019s car in a parking lot is not a search. \u201cMr. Porter alleges that Investigator Tucci committed an unreasonable search by conducting surveillance of his vehicle in a parking lot and by looking up his plate and vehicle registration in a database without \u2018reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.\u2019 Pl.’s Opp’n 5-6. But Investigator Tucci did not need reasonable suspicion for those activities. Ordinary visual surveillance from a public place does not amount to a search.\u201d Porter v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61007 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Pennsylvania AG obtained a search warrant for records for insurance disability fraud. Federal crimes were revealed. The warrants were issued on probable cause and were particular enough. United States v. Capozzi<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8712 (3d Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aside from citing the wrong authority to begin with, \u201cReasonable jurists would also agree that it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that Winbush failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice under Strickland. Winbush failed to show that the non-litigated suppression motions would have been meritorious.\u201d Winbush v. Boyd, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8732 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Visual surveillance of plaintiff\u2019s car in a parking lot is not a search. \u201cMr. Porter alleges that Investigator Tucci committed an unreasonable search by conducting surveillance of his vehicle in a parking lot and by looking up his plate and … Continue reading