Daily Archives: November 3, 2017

C.D.Ill.: Ins. co. has standing to sue that audit would be 4A violation, and its claim is ripe. Motion to dismiss denied.

An insurance company subject to government audit has standing to challenge the legal basis for the audit. Its Fourth Amendment claim is ripe: “Fidelity’s Fourth Amendment claim in Count 1 presents a purely legal question, which renders the claim fit … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off

WA: Appeal should have been from dismissal after granted suppression order; appeal dismissed

State couldn’t appeal a suppression order after it moves to dismiss a case. It should have appealed the dismissal order or both. State v. Cruz, 2017 Wash. LEXIS 997 (Nov. 2, 2017). Dropping a coat with a gun in the … Continue reading

Posted in Abandonment, Uncategorized | Comments Off

CA6: “Pill mill” employee was a snitch who let in undercover DEA agent as a patient; this was consent to enter and assumption of risk

The defendant was suspected of running a “pill mill.” A nurse practitioner worked for the clinic and was feeding information to the DEA as well as engaging in illegal acts, too. The DEA got the nurse to let an undercover … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Consent | Comments Off

Fairfaxtimes.com: Is your refrigerator dropping a dime on you?

Fairfaxtimes.com: Is your refrigerator dropping a dime on you? Letter to the editor on the surveillance life of home appliances.

Posted in Surveillance technology | Comments Off

CA6: No reasonable officer could conclude there was PC for pft’s arrest

“When reviewing the information known to Seidl at the time of Zavatson’s arrest, we conclude that no reasonable officer could have believed, based on anything more than speculation, that Zavatson had committed the purported theft. As an initial matter, there … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off

CA6: Ptf’s guilty plea after losing suppression motion wasn’t collateral estoppel to § 1983 and Heck not implicated

Plaintiff sued over his body cavity search that was part of his state case. He litigated and lost in state trial court then pled guilty. His federal action does not implicate his conviction, and it can proceed under Heck v. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off

D.Me.: Officer’s comments and actions on body recorder belie any need for protective sweep

Officers went to defendant’s mobile home on a knock-and-talk based on an attempt to buy a gun two weeks earlier that was denied because the address given didn’t match the driver’s license. At the door of the mobile home, the … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off

New American: Did Mueller’s Search of Manafort’s Home Violate the Fourth Amendment?

New American: Did Mueller’s Search of Manafort’s Home Violate the Fourth Amendment? by C. Mitchell Shaw:

Posted in Warrant execution | Comments Off