Tracking defendant\u2019s vehicle with automatic license plate readers can\u2019t be equated with GPS placement, so Jones distinguished. There’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in an LPN. There is also interesting Franks and staleness issues. Defendant got a Franks hearing but didn\u2019t prevail because probable cause was shown in any event. And, because the car was used in a shooting, it was reasonable to think that spent shell cases would be inside. United States v. Griffin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97641 (S.D. Ind. May 22, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDonovan does not identify on appeal which statements in the affidavits were \u2018deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.\u2019 Instead, he cites to the memorandum in support of the motion to suppress submitted to the district court and argues that the Government did not dispute the alleged misrepresentations but rather \u2018attempted to justify the affiant’s action.\u2019 Therefore, we have analyzed the filings submitted to the district court.\u201d And he loses for lack of a showing. United States v. Bourrage, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12360 (5th Cir. May 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was lost in a construction area because his vehicle GPS wasn\u2019t accurate, and he stopped at a police car for directions. One thing led to another, and he was arrested for DUI. A search of the car revealed a firearm he was prohibited from possessing. The search was valid. United States v. Reed, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96712 (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Tracking defendant\u2019s vehicle with automatic license plate readers can\u2019t be equated with GPS placement, so Jones distinguished. There’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in an LPN. There is also interesting Franks and staleness issues. Defendant got a Franks hearing but … Continue reading