USA v. Moore-Bush et al
| Massachusetts District Court | |
| Case #: | 3:18-cr-30001 |
| Case Filed: | Jan 11, 2018 |
| Last checked: Saturday Feb 10, 2018 2:24 AM EST |
|
Defendant
Dinelson Dinzey (2)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Joshua Foster (3)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Jamieson Gallas (5)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Nia Moore-Bush (1)
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Tracy Parsons (4)
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
USA
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Jun 03 2019
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER "In sum, this Court does not rule that the use of a pole camera necessarily constitutes a search. Instead, the Court rules narrowly that several aspects of the Governments use of this Pole Camera does. Those aspects are the Pole Cameras (1) continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focus on the driveway and front of the house; (3) ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) creation of a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspects life. See Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2217 (quoting Jones, 565 U.S. at 415 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Therefore, the Court ALLOWS Moore-Bush and Moores motions to suppress evidence obtained directly from the Pole Camera, ECF Nos. 326, 358. Although Moore-Bush and Moore say that the Pole Camera may have led to the discovery of other tainted evidence, they do not identify that evidence for the Court. The Court thus takes no action with regard to evidence collected indirectly from the Pole Camera. SO ORDERED." (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth) |
|
|
GPO
Jun 04 2019
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER* (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER* (Sonnenberg, Elizabeth) |
| 1. | Federal Court: Eight Months Of Utility Pole Camera Surveillance Is A Fourth Amendment Violation (techdirt.com) |
| Submitted Tue 06/11/2019 | |
| Docket last updated: 09/27/2020 11:42 PM EDT |
| Thursday, January 11, 2018 | ||
| 1 | 1
MOTION to Seal Indictment as to Nia Moore-Bush, Dinelson Dinzey, Joshua Foster, Tracy Parsons, Jamieson Gallas by USA. (Healy, Bethaney)
|
|
| 2 | 2 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting1 Motion to Seal Indictment as to Nia Moore-Bush (1), Dinelson Dinzey (2), Joshua Foster (3), Tracy Parsons (4), Jamieson Gallas (5). (Healy, Bethaney) | |
| 3 | 3
4
pgs
SEALED INDICTMENT as to Nia Moore-Bush (1) count(s) 1, Dinelson Dinzey (2) count(s) 1, Joshua Foster (3) count(s) 1, Tracy Parsons (4) count(s) 1, Jamieson Gallas (5) count(s) 1.(Healy, Bethaney)
|
|
|
Att: 1
10 pgs
JS45
|
||
| 4 | 4 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment as to Nia Moore-Bush, Dinelson Dinzey, Joshua Foster, Tracy Parsons, Jamieson Gallas; Judge Mark G. Mastroianni and Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Healy, Bethaney) | |
| 5 | 5
Arrest Warrant Issued by Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson as to Nia Moore-Bush. (Healy, Bethaney)
|
|
| 6 | 6
Arrest Warrant Issued by Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson as to Dinelson Dinzey. (Healy, Bethaney)
|
|
| 7 | 7
Arrest Warrant Issued by Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson as to Joshua Foster. (Healy, Bethaney)
|
|
| 8 | 8
Arrest Warrant Issued by Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson as to Tracy Parsons. (Healy, Bethaney)
|
|
| 9 | 9
Arrest Warrant Issued by Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson as to Jamieson Gallas. (Healy, Bethaney)
|
|