Suppression of Evidence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Cory S. Castetter

Case No.: 17-1327

Officials: FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

Focus:  Suppression of Evidence  

As Castetter saw things, Michigan’s police lack authority to monitor the location of a car in Indiana, no matter what the Michigan warrant says. Castetter’s fallback argument is that the first warrant pertains to Holst, not him, and that police (whether from Michigan or Indiana) were forbidden to learn who was doing business on his property without obtaining a warrant based on his own activities.  Castetter then entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to raise the suppression argument on appeal, and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.

Castetter’s fallback argument is equally weak. True, the first warrant was not based on information about Castetter. But neither did it authorize anyone to learn about the inside of his home, as the infrared device did in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). All the police learned by monitoring the GPS device was the location of Holst’s car, and Castetter lacked a privacy interest in that location.

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.