Defendant was a friend of the family, and he came over to install an additional security camera inside the house. Later, that camera caught him sexually assaulting one of the girls. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy despite spending the night there on occasion, including this one. The recording didn\u2019t violate the state eavesdropping statute. Baughcum v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 239 (May 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Continuing a knock-and-talk at a domestic disturbance and finally entering was all supported by exigency. Meyer v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 162 (May 12, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no confrontation right to cross-examine the CI who did the buy that led to the warrant who never testified at trial. United States v. Geer, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105511 (N.D. Ohio May 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was a friend of the family, and he came over to install an additional security camera inside the house. Later, that camera caught him sexually assaulting one of the girls. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy despite spending … Continue reading