In prosecution on bank robbery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to supnews evidence seized from defendant’s car that was subject to GPS tracking device that police followed from Indiana to California after police had obtained warrant to use such device and had arranged for defendant’s arrest in California. While defendant argued that such evidence should have been supnewsed because said warrant contained limitation that tracking could only occur in Indiana, Ct. of Appeals found no Fourth Amendment violation, where independent magistrate issued warrant based on probable cause with particular description of plan or thing to be searched. Fact that police officials did not comply with in-state limitation did not require different result, where said limitation did not reflect any constitutional requirement. Moreover, while defendant had constitutionally protected privacy interest in his whereabouts, said interest was no greater on Indiana roads than on California roads. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s alleged participation in unindicted robberies in other states, where said evidence was offered to prove identity through modus operandi and to show defendant’s intent. Fact that other robberies used slightly different tactics did not undermine distinct resemblance among robberies. U.S. v. Brewer No. 18-2035 (February 4, 2019)