\u201cPrzychocki alleges that defendants Kearns, Grimm, and Schill violated her Fourth Amendment rights by surveilling her property from the street to identify code violations. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A government action is a \u2018search\u2019 only if it intrudes upon an area where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. \u2026 Surveillance from a public street, even for a lengthy period of time, is not a search because it is not reasonable to expect privacy in what is plainly visible to the public. Id. (camera surveillance of home from a public place did not violate Fourth Amendment). Przychocki affirmatively alleges that defendants inspected her property from a public street, so her Fourth Amendment claim fails as a matter of law.\u201d Przychocki v. Kearns, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76246 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for warrant was based on probable cause, and, even if not, it was good enough for the good faith exception. United States v. Jennings, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9544 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant was seized when Officer Oyana placed his hand on Defendant’s arm and asked for Defendant’s identification.\u201d United States v. Jackson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75902 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPrzychocki alleges that defendants Kearns, Grimm, and Schill violated her Fourth Amendment rights by surveilling her property from the street to identify code violations. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A government action is a \u2018search\u2019 only … Continue reading