Category Archives: Qualified immunity

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

D.V.I.: Flyover of curtilage from navigable airspace was reasonable

Officers did a flyover of defendant’s home from navigable airspace and saw a marijuana grow. While he had a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage, not from 2000′. United States v. Flavius, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92974 (D.V.I. … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Inevitable discovery, Plain view, feel, smell, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.V.I.: Flyover of curtilage from navigable airspace was reasonable

M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

It isn’t apparent that there’s a right to challenge a search warrant before it is executed. (Rule 17 covers motions to quash subpoenas.) Even if there was, defendant doesn’t carry his burden. United States v. Crumpton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

CA6: Officer observing “forced” baptism of drug offender as 1A & 4A violation gets QI for failure to intervene

A police officer was also a preacher. After a marijuana arrest, he elected to baptize the offender in an Ohio lake. He called Goforth, another officer, to attend, and that officer video recorded it. Later, the offender sued for a … Continue reading

Posted in Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA6: Officer observing “forced” baptism of drug offender as 1A & 4A violation gets QI for failure to intervene

CA9: SW application made “under penalty of perjury” satisfies the “oath or affirmation” requirement

A search warrant application made “under penalty of perjury” satisfies the “oath or affirmation” requirement. United States v. Morrow, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11933 (9th Cir. May 16, 2023). Defendant prevailed on the merits of his honest services wire fraud … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Oath or affirmation, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: SW application made “under penalty of perjury” satisfies the “oath or affirmation” requirement