Defendant was on disability. The government placed a pole camera across the street from his house to see whether he was able or not, and he was indicted for theft of public funds. Ten weeks of pole camera surveillance was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Carpenter didn\u2019t change things. \u201cUnited States v. Jackson remains binding precedent in the Tenth Circuit and precludes finding the pole camera surveillance was a Fourth Amendment search.\u201d United States v. Hay, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82014 (D.Kan. May 5, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stipulation to blood test results amounted to a waiver it was illegally obtained. State v. Delau<\/a>, 2022-NCSC-61, 2022 N.C. LEXIS 436 (May 6, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DUI checkpoint here was shown to be properly established. State v. Cobb<\/a>, 2022-NCSC-57, 2022 N.C. LEXIS 435 (May 6, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was on disability. The government placed a pole camera across the street from his house to see whether he was able or not, and he was indicted for theft of public funds. Ten weeks of pole camera surveillance was … Continue reading