Category Archives: § 1983 / Bivens

CA1: Notable Bivens dismissal by its dissent: retired Justice Breyer

A Bivens claim, not specifically a Fourth Amendment claim, fails because of a different context from existing caselaw. The claim fails 2-1. What’s interesting is that retired Justice Breyer was on the panel, and he dissented that the claim should … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA1: Notable Bivens dismissal by its dissent: retired Justice Breyer

N.D.Ala.: Lack of a SW signature cured by GFE

“Defendant argues that the warrant is facially deficient because the affidavit lacked a signature, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit has considered and rejected this argument. See United States v. Gordon, 686 F. App’x 702, 704 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Forfeiture, Good faith exception, Neutral and detached magistrate, Plain view, feel, smell, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Lack of a SW signature cured by GFE

CA7: Cautionary tale in § 1983 case: “this appeal is a mess”

A confusing case presented from both sides, a cautionary tale: “this appeal is a mess.” Cave v. Valenti, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9405 (7th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025):

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading | Comments Off on CA7: Cautionary tale in § 1983 case: “this appeal is a mess”

CA2: In getting arrest warrant, defenses don’t have to be considered

In a false arrest claim, the officer procuring the warrant doesn’t have to negate plaintiff’s defenses beforehand. Glover v. Onondaga Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8436 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2025)*:

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest | Comments Off on CA2: In getting arrest warrant, defenses don’t have to be considered

CA5: Just because Bivens might become a dead letter doesn’t mean that the officers didn’t violate the 4A

Just because Bivens might become a dead letter doesn’t mean that the officers didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. Villarreal v. City of Laredo, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8241 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025). My words, not the court’s but that’s … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA5: Just because Bivens might become a dead letter doesn’t mean that the officers didn’t violate the 4A

MD: When asked if def “minded” to consent to a frisk, he consented

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the officer asked about whether he was armed and whether he “minded” to consent to a frisk. He argued that he had no choice but to answer, but he did have a … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Curtilage, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on MD: When asked if def “minded” to consent to a frisk, he consented

C.D.Cal.: Suit over NYC DA’s subpoena for possession of a stolen antiquity is dismissed

The defendant here is Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of New York County, NY (Manhattan). He’s sued in the Central District of California over his office’s investigation into antiquity art theft where plaintiff purchased a statue, the Bronze Male, for … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Due process, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Suit over NYC DA’s subpoena for possession of a stolen antiquity is dismissed

D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

Plaintiff’s 242 paragraph § 1983 complaint calls into question his criminal conviction, so it’s barred by Heck. Turner v. Kansas Court of Appeals, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55052 (D. Kan. Mar. 25, 2025).* “Here, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful imprisonment and … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Kan.: § 1983 complaint questions state conviction and is barred by Heck

S.D.Cal.: Officer doesn’t need a window tint meter in hand to justify a stop for overtinted windows

“But clearing the low bar of reasonable suspicion requires little more. Police need not ‘carry around and use burdensome equipment to measure light transmittance.” United States v. Wallace, 213 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting People v. Niebauer, 263 … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: Officer doesn’t need a window tint meter in hand to justify a stop for overtinted windows

S.D.Ohio: Stone bar applies regardless of the merits of the 4A claim

The Stone bar applies regardless of the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim. Wood v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24460 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2025).* Notice pleading in Fourth Amendment § 1983 claims: “Plaintiff alleges that … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Stone bar applies regardless of the merits of the 4A claim

DC: Key fob was properly seized incident to arrest

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress his frisk incident to arrest that produced a key fob in 2017. The law changed a little five years after the search occurred, but it still would have failed at the … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Attenuation, Search incident | Comments Off on DC: Key fob was properly seized incident to arrest

E.D.Mo.: No claim where no damages shown for alleged unreasonable dog sniff; nothing was found, detention was otherwise reasonable

Officers were surveilling a van that they believed might have a connection to an unsolved homicide. They observed what appeared to be hand-to-hand drug transactions, and the van’s LPN was expired. They approached. There were others around the van, and … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Dog sniff, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Surveillance technology | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: No claim where no damages shown for alleged unreasonable dog sniff; nothing was found, detention was otherwise reasonable

CA5: Ptf’s excessive force claim arising from a traffic stop expands Bivens

Plaintiff’s shooting during a traffic stop gone bad is an expansion of Bivens and is rejected. Hernandez v. Causey, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32527 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2024). Defendant had standing to contest the search of his room at … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Excessive force, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on CA5: Ptf’s excessive force claim arising from a traffic stop expands Bivens

CA8: Car on car hauler’s tractor trailer still mobile for automobile exception

Defendant shipped a car on a car hauler paying in advance. All things considered, the hauler suspected drugs were involved because it had happened to him before. He called HSI which came to investigate. On the totality, there was probable … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Automobile exception | Comments Off on CA8: Car on car hauler’s tractor trailer still mobile for automobile exception

MO: Def’s 4A ineffective assistance claim fails because he doesn’t show he’d prevail on the 4A claim

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was based on defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress of a marital vehicle. He never, however, showed that he did, in fact, have standing. Moreover, the trial court found that the … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on MO: Def’s 4A ineffective assistance claim fails because he doesn’t show he’d prevail on the 4A claim

Leftovers

2255 petitioner fails to show grounds for a CoA from his search claims, without telling us the rationale. United States v. Renteria, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30239 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024).* Defendant’s stop and frisk was without reasonable suspicion. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Stop and frisk, Strip search | Comments Off on Leftovers

CA10: “Bivens is now all but dead.”

“Bivens is now all but dead.” Rowland v. Matevousian, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29406 (10th Cir. Nov. 19, 2024). But we already knew that. Not a Fourth Amendment case, but a prison denial of medical care, but that’s where Bivens … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA10: “Bivens is now all but dead.”

W.D.Ark.: State remedy for return of property bars § 1983 claim for it

Plaintiff’s § 1983 suit for return of property is denied because there is a state law remedy, even if a federal claim was barred by Heck. Owens v. Samuel, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189894 (W.D. Ark. Sep. 24, 2024), adopted, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on W.D.Ark.: State remedy for return of property bars § 1983 claim for it

AR & PA: Def’s statements at time of search used at trial

Defendant’s DNA was taken by warrant at the jail, and his admissions about the offense during that captured on bodycam were admitted at trial. There was no questioning; it was voluntary. Torres v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 457 (Sep. 25, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Custody, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on AR & PA: Def’s statements at time of search used at trial

Cal.6: Cell phone SW was limited to a specific date and time for certain materials, but the search far exceeded it; suppressed, no GFE

The search warrant here was issued for evidence of a sexual assault of an adult. There were pretext text messages sent by the police pretending to be the victim to get an admission. When the search warrant was executed, child … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell phones, Good faith exception, Scope of search, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on Cal.6: Cell phone SW was limited to a specific date and time for certain materials, but the search far exceeded it; suppressed, no GFE