Defendant's drug manufacturing conviction is affirmed where: 1) defendant could not show that the police invaded an area in which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walked up his driveway and attached a tracking device to his vehicle; and 2) the police did not conduct an impermissible search of defendant's car by monitoring its location with mobile tracking devices.
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2009
Filed January 11, 2010
Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain
Harrison Latto, Portland, OR
Amy E. Potter and Judith R. Harper, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Oregon, Medford, OR