Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated a reasonable expectation of privacy and likely Title III. Baker v. City of Pittsburgh, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2157 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search of defendant\u2019s vehicle was impliedly consented to. Defendant was stopped by federal wildlife officers on land next to a military training area. Whether the place where the search occurred was a military installation and he was subject to search by being found there doesn\u2019t matter. United States v. Rodgers, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1449 (D. Alaska Jan. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 false arrest case was barred by his state indictment. Dye v. Casey B., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235539 (D.S.C. Dec. 3, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 943 (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was probable cause for plaintiff\u2019s arrest for violating an order of protection. Klein v. Daniels, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1701 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Hidden bodycams used to record conversations in unmarked police cars between officers violated a reasonable expectation of privacy and likely Title III. Baker v. City of Pittsburgh, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2157 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025). The search of … Continue reading