2.1 C
Washington
spot_img

Accused DECC window-peeper seeks suppression of evidence based on unlawful search

Date:

Share:

On March 20, 2025, counsel for alleged DECC window-peeper Perry Burke filed a motion in St. Louis Co...

A subscription is required to access this article. Subscribe or click login below:

Use this form to sign up for the FREE
Duluth Monitor Newsletter.

━ more like this

Mayor Paine halted zoning application and subsequent land sale, lawsuit alleges

A lawsuit filed in federal court on Oct. 9, 2025 alleges that Superior Mayor Jim Paine and Planning Director Jason Serck improperly used their...

Proposed zoning move to St. Louis County stirs concern in Lakewood Township

In St. Louis County, only four townships manage their own zoning codes—Duluth, Gnesen, Lakewood, and Midway Townships. Zoning regulations in the remaining 143 townships...

Potlatch loses FSC certification in wake of sexual harassment investigations

On Nov. 14, 2025, two women filed separate cases in Beltrami County District Court, alleging that they had been repeatedly sexually harassed by their...

Community Action Duluth closes farmers markets without explanation, owing vendors thousands

Both the Lincoln Park Farmers Market (which operates out of the Harrison Community Center) and the Hillside Farmers Market (located in an Essentia parking...

Buhl bar owner charged with pull-tab fraud

The owner of Billy’s Pit Stop Pub n’ Grub in Buhl was recently charged with paying out over $68,000 in pull-tab winnings to herself...
spot_img

3 COMMENTS

  1. The warrant was granted to look at the photos on the guy’s phone for evidence proving he is a peeping tom. The additional photos from his other crimes are relevant to that specific warrant, so it should be admissible. Also, by looking for pictures and coming across the others, one could say they were in “plain view” and can be seized as evidence. There is also something called “Inevitable Discovery”. If the photos would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means anyway, they would be admissible. It will be interesting to hear what they decide.

    • Thanks for asking. The case is still winding its way through the courts. The defense has raised an objection to evidence uncovered in the search of Burke’s phone, saying the search warrant was unreasonably broad. The judge has not ruled on that at this point. The next hearing is scheduled for July 25, 2025.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here