A reasonable expectation of privacy in one\u2019s workspace is not automatic. Here it was a postal worker in a sorting area, and that wasn\u2019t private. United States v. Alarc\u00f3n-Rodr\u00edguez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175916 (D.P.R. Sep. 25, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBecause a car’s interior is \u2018subject to Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable intrusions by the police,\u2019 New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 114-115, 106 S. Ct. 960, 89 L. Ed. 2d 81 (1986), \u2018a justification for that action had to be offered.\u2019\u201d Defendant\u2019s \u201caltercation\u201d where the officer unjustifiably yanked open his car door and they \u201cstruggled\u201d over it was not probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest here. Commonwealth v. Tyson, 2024 Mass. App. LEXIS 130 (Sep. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was stopped in 2011 on an \u201cinvestigative alert\u201d and there was probable cause. The constitutionality of those stops wasn\u2019t decided until 2019, so the police acted in good faith at the time. People v. Mathis, 2024 IL App (1st) 211102 (Sep. 30, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A reasonable expectation of privacy in one\u2019s workspace is not automatic. Here it was a postal worker in a sorting area, and that wasn\u2019t private. United States v. Alarc\u00f3n-Rodr\u00edguez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175916 (D.P.R. Sep. 25, 2024).* \u201cBecause a … Continue reading