The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 did not apply where there was probable cause to believe defendant was involved in a crime: the \u201csuspect exception.\u201d Sennett v. United States, 778 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2011):<\/p>\n
At issue on the government\u2019s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, is whether the \u201csuspect exception\u201d to the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (\u201cPPA\u201d), 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2000aa(a)(1), (b)(1)<\/a>, bars plaintiff\u2019s claim that federal law enforcement officers violated her PPA rights by searching her home and seizing photographs and photographic equipment. The PPA\u2019s \u201csuspect exception\u201d applies only where government officials have probable cause to believe that the target of the search has committed an offense, and the materials seized are related to that offense. Here, the record evidence establishes that there was probable cause to believe that plaintiff was involved in the vandalism of the Four Seasons Hotel on April 12, 2008, and the subsequent search of plaintiff\u2019s home related to the investigation of that incident. Accordingly, the PPA\u2019s \u201csuspect exception\u201d applies, and summary judgment must be granted in favor of the government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers approached defendant\u2019s house to conduct a knock and talk. As they approached they could smell burning marijuana. At the door they heard something to the effect of \u201cI\u2019ve got a half pound of weed.\u201d When the door opened, marijuana smoke billowed out. The entry was justified. United States v. Silkwood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40040 (W.D. Mo. March 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading