There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room that was recording defendant without his knowledge. Foster v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65874 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant can\u2019t raise in his 2255 his Fourth Amendment claim that he was illegally recorded by the officer because he had the opportunity to do it before disposition. On the merits, he can\u2019t possibly win because he ran the risk he\u2019d be recorded by any officer he talked to. [Body cams? Dashcams?] United States v. Varnell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64545 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Franks motion fails: \u201cIn his Second Supplemental Response, Washington does not allege that any statements in the affidavit were either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard. Rather, he asks the Court to schedule a hearing to determine this issue. \u2026 Since Washington has failed to allege or offer proof that statements in the warrant affidavit were made deliberately or with reckless disregard, he is not entitled to a Franks hearing.\u201d United States v. Washington, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66335 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 11, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room that was recording defendant without his knowledge. Foster v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65874 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2024). Defendant can\u2019t raise in his 2255 his Fourth … Continue reading