Category Archives: Qualified immunity

PA MMA doesn’t permit driving while smoking MMJ

The MMA doesn’t permit driving while smoking MMJ. The smell of burnt MJ coming from defendant’s car was reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Commonwealth v. Sloan, 2023 PA Super 173 (Sep. 21, 2023).* Plaintiff was in court shortly after … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Strip search | Comments Off on PA MMA doesn’t permit driving while smoking MMJ

W.D.Tex.: Right to non-recording and distribution of jail calls to attorneys was clearly established

Plaintiff’s complaint against the jail for recording attorney-client calls and transmitting them to law enforcement and prosecutors stated a claim for relief that was clearly established. Hurdsman v. Gleason, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163081 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2023). Defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Privileges, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Tex.: Right to non-recording and distribution of jail calls to attorneys was clearly established

TX1: SW for cell phone in jail property room was not stale

The search warrant for defendant’s cell phone in a burglary case was not based on stale information. She was in custody and her phone was in her property. Cell phone information is enduring. Veal v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity, Staleness | Comments Off on TX1: SW for cell phone in jail property room was not stale

OH1: Automobile exception does not apply to a purse removed from vehicle before PC developed

“In this appeal, we are asked to consider the narrow application of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement: whether officers may, in the course of a car search, search a container held roughly 25 feet away from … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Burden of pleading, Qualified immunity, Seizure, Standing | Comments Off on OH1: Automobile exception does not apply to a purse removed from vehicle before PC developed

E.D.Pa.: Ongoing investigation bars access to warrant papers for time being

The target of a search warrant can’t yet get access to the affidavit in support because the case is still under investigation and there is a potential of exposing grand jury witnesses. In re Search Warrants Issued November 30, 2022, … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Ongoing investigation bars access to warrant papers for time being

D.Nev.: Clearly established state statute doesn’t translate to clearly established constitutional law

Clearly established state statute doesn’t translate to clearly established constitutional law for § 1983 qualified immunity purposes. Brown v. Tromba, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149020 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2023).* “In their reply brief the OSA Defendants cite cases concerning … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Custody, Qualified immunity, Search incident, Trespass | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Clearly established state statute doesn’t translate to clearly established constitutional law

Bloomberg Law: Church Sues California County Over Alleged Covid-19 Geofencing

Bloomberg Law: Church Sues California County Over Alleged Covid-19 Geofencing by Jorja Siemons:

Posted in geofence, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on Bloomberg Law: Church Sues California County Over Alleged Covid-19 Geofencing

ND: Opening door of a parked and running semi when driver didn’t wake up was to gather information and was unreasonable

“Thus, we conclude law enforcement was acting outside the scope of the community caretaking function when opening the semi door and stepping onto the running boards in an attempt to gather information without first attempting to get a response from … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Curtilage, Knock and talk, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on ND: Opening door of a parked and running semi when driver didn’t wake up was to gather information and was unreasonable

CA5: Arrest on curtilage was subject to questions of fact

Plaintiff raised questions of fact and law as to the officer’s authority to arrest him in his front yard on the curtilage. Summary judgment denied on the merits, but remanded for further qualified immunity analysis. Sauceda v. City of San … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Qualified immunity, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA5: Arrest on curtilage was subject to questions of fact

W.D.Okla.: Broad challenges to how ptf was investigated all barred by Heck

“Many of Plaintiff’s alleged violations attack the procedures used to investigate and charge him, the evidence used to convict him, as well as the constitutionality of the first-degree murder statute under which he was convicted. Success on some of these … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Broad challenges to how ptf was investigated all barred by Heck

CA11: Lawyers were arrested for interfering with cell phone search

In a CPS-type case, there was a search warrant for two cell phones with alleged child pornography on them, and officers were going to execute them outside a hearing in the courthouse. Watching on surveillance video, officers saw the phones’ … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Qualified immunity, Standing | Comments Off on CA11: Lawyers were arrested for interfering with cell phone search

CA4: Not clearly established that VA DOC can’t drug test a Telecommunications Network Coordinator

Qualified immunity applies to the Virginia DOC directing a drug test of a Telecommunications Network Coordinator. “After VDOC fired Garrett for declining a random drug test, Garrett sued, alleging that VDOC employees violated his Fourth Amendment rights by applying VDOC’s … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA4: Not clearly established that VA DOC can’t drug test a Telecommunications Network Coordinator

CA5: No REP in a video recorded by another of def committing a crime

While one can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in something he doesn’t own (as in bailment or contract), here it was a video recorded by another of him possessing firearms. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA5: No REP in a video recorded by another of def committing a crime

M.D.Ala.: CI’s controlled buy doesn’t have to be on video to support PC

There’s no constitutional requirement that the informant’s controlled buy be on video to support probable cause. United States v. Salter, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119269 (M.D. Ala. June 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115746 (M.D. Ala. July 6, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: CI’s controlled buy doesn’t have to be on video to support PC

E.D.Ark.: Ptf’s Facebook posts shooting guns supported use of flashbang during drug raid

Plaintiff’s Facebook posts of her shooting guns on her property supported the use of flashbang devices when her house was subjected to a drug raid by the SWAT team. Davenport v. City of Little Rock, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119102 … Continue reading

Posted in Custody, Informant hearsay, Qualified immunity, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: Ptf’s Facebook posts shooting guns supported use of flashbang during drug raid

DE: Where SW was for clothing worn in shooting, nexus shown to def’s home

Where the search warrant sought clothing worn during a shooting, nexus was shown to where defendant lived. State v. Johnson, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 324 (July 7, 2023). There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest for harassment of another person. … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Nexus, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on DE: Where SW was for clothing worn in shooting, nexus shown to def’s home

E.D.Tenn.: SW for a cell phone includes the SD card in it

A search warrant for a cell phone includes the SD card in it. United States v. Glatz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114963 (E.D. Tenn. July 5, 2023). A jury question on probable cause to arrest remained, and that avoids qualified … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Ineffective assistance, Qualified immunity, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: SW for a cell phone includes the SD card in it

CA7: Sexual assault under color of law can state 4A claim under § 1983

A police ride-along with a student led to a sexual assault § 1983 suit. “It is well established that sexual assault by a government official acting under color of law violates the Constitution. Cases from different circuits have relied on … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA7: Sexual assault under color of law can state 4A claim under § 1983

RI: Exigency of hot pursuit in a homicide case made pinging cell phone reasonable

Despite Carpenter saying it is limited to historical CSLI, this court concludes there is no meaningful difference between real-time and historical CSLI under Carpenter. Exigency, however, was real. The police were in hot pursuit seeking to question defendant for a … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Hot pursuit, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness | Comments Off on RI: Exigency of hot pursuit in a homicide case made pinging cell phone reasonable

W.D.Mich.: Differing possessory interest claims in state and then federal court is estoppel

At a state show cause hearing, plaintiff disavowed any possessory or property interest in two pit bulls, so he’s estopped from claiming it in a § 1983 case over the dogs. Crandall v. Newaygo Cty., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104374 … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: Differing possessory interest claims in state and then federal court is estoppel