Moreover, the wording of Defendant's search condition differs from that in Stockton. See also United States v. Dennis, No. 3:18-cr-328 (VAB), 2020 WL 1316658, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48035, *18-19 (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2020) (holding that because Connecticut's parole search condition was “silent as to whether a warrant would ever be required to conduct a search,” which differed from the California search condition in Samson, defendant “had at least some minimal expectation of privacy” that was “sufficient to allow him to move to suppress the evidence that was seized-i.e., to give him ‘standing' to move to suppress”)
While this does not mean that Defendant enjoys no privacy in his whereabouts, what privacy interest he does retain must be balanced against the law enforcement motivation for extracting Defendant's location data from the monitoring device. See United States v. Dennis, No. 3:18-cr-328 (VAB), 2020 WL 1316658, at *7-8 (D. Conn. March 20, 2020) (finding that the parolee subjected to a law enforcement search had at least a minimal expectation of privacy that needed to be balanced against the government interest). Turning to the law enforcement interest, the police had a legitimate reason for searching Defendant's GPS location data.