Arons v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Delaware

holding that using pole cameras to view outdoor areas surrounding a home and easily observable by people passing by does not violate the Fourth Amendment | assuming that the audio component of a video recorder is subject to Title III | stating " Martinez-Salazar ... pulls the plug on the Swain dictum and requires us to address the harmless-error question as an original matter" | stating “Martinez-Salazar . . . pulls the plug on the Swain dictum and requires us to address the harmless-error question as an original matter” | “Although it may be unusual for a person to distribute a controlled substance without at least momentarily possessing the controlled substance, it is not impossible.” | Supreme Court of Michigan and United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, respectively, holding that peremptory challenge errors are subject to harmless-error analysis | “The use of video equipment and cameras to record activity visible to the naked eye does not ordinarily violate the Fourth Amendment.” | "The federal wiretap law does not cover video surveillance where no audio recording is made." | the “substitution of a camera for in-person surveillance does not offend the Fourth Amendment” | the “substitution of a camera for in-person surveillance does not offend the Fourth Amendment” | “[I]t does not follow that simple possession is a lesser included offense of distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)____ Although it may be unusual for a person to distribute a controlled substance without at least momentarily possessing the controlled substance, it is not impossible.”