◆ SpookStack

*7 a defense witness possessing material, exculpatory and non-cumulative evidence which is unobtainable from any other source will invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination unless granted executive "use" immunity.. Id. at 342. Ir Carter the court heid that if the Government did not"submit to the court a reasonable basis for not affording use immunity," then the court would dismiss the indictment. Id. at.343. The district court refused to follow Carter.. : The appellants do not argue the district court's refusal to follow Carter violated any right they had under any source of law. The closest they come is to say"a strong case can be made that Juse immunity] is compelled ... by due process considerations, but they do not make any effort to show this case presents the sort of"extraordinary circumstances' in which some courts have suggested the Government's failure to grant use immunity might violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see, e.g., United States y. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 935 (2d Cir.1988) (discussing three-part test used to determine whether failure of Government to grant immunity violates due process; including "prosecutorial overreaching"); cf. United States v. Lugg, 892 F.2d 101, 104 (D.C.Cir.1989) (reserving due process issue: "[w]hatever it takes to constitute a deprivation of a fair trial by the prosecution's failure to exercise its broad discretion on immunity grants, the present case does not present it'). Instead, their counsel told the district court: I'll be straight. I'll be honest with the Court. I don't believe that there's any case law in this jurisdiction or another federal jurisdiction that would allow the Court to do this.... I think that the Court should, in its discretion, adopt [the rule in Carter ]. The appellants mistake our role in asking us "to fashion [ ]' a rule of the sort.the district court declined to adopt. Absent a well-founded claim they were deprived of due process, the only question they may properly raise is whether the district court abused its discretion, to which the answer is obviously no. HII. Analysis: Evidence Obtained from GPS Device Jones argues his conviction should be overturned because the police violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of "unreasonable searches' by tracking his movements 24 hours.a day for four weeks with a GPS device they had installed on his Jeep without a having concluded it was, consider whether it was reasonable and whether any error was harmless. FN* Although the Jeep was registered in the name of Jones's wife, the Government notes "Jones was the exclusive driver of the Jeep," and does not argue his non-ownership of the Jeep defeats Jones's standing to object. We see no reason it should. See Rakas y. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148-49 & n.17 (1978) (whether defendant may challenge police action as search depends upon his legitimate.expectation of privacy, not upon his legal relationship 9 TTUOTD 007090