Plaintiff was arrested in her house and removed to the street in a short nightgown. She asked to be allowed to dress before going outside, and her request was denied. She was seen by her neighbors outside in her nightgown being arrested, apparently without cause. She was taken in and questioned. “Plaintiff was released from custody after about four hours, at approximately 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff, still in her nightgown and blanket, was left in the lobby of the sheriff’s office waiting for her sister to arrive to provide transportation back to her home. See Docket No. 11 & Docket No. 39 at 2. Plaintiff avers that, at some point after she was taken to the sheriff’s office for questioning, she returned to her home and witnessed her ‘property [] covered with news media personnel, along with numerous law enforcement agents. The house was wide open and people were traveling in and out of the residence, carrying bags of unknown property and articles of clothing.’ PSOF, Exh. B. Plaintiff later ‘observed live news broadcasts from my home on several local television stations, stating that the property was used to conduct a jet ski chop shop.’ Id., Exh. B. However, there is no evidence presented to the Court that Defendants invited the news media onto Plaintiff’s property or facilitated their activities, if that in fact occurred.” The front door was broken and could not be locked because of damage from the battering ram used to break down the door. Bettin v. Maricopa County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42979 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2007):
Plaintiff’s detention outside her residence in her nightgown, notwithstanding her request to dress, while boorish and unprofessional, did not exceed the scope of detention authorized by Summers. However, Defendants did not continue to detain Plaintiff at the scene of the search. Defendants removed Plaintiff from her home and took her to the sheriff’s office for questioning without placing Plaintiff under arrest and without having a reasonable belief that Plaintiff was suspected of criminal activity. At that time, any reliance defendants might have had upon a Summers detention evaporated. Ganwich, 319 F.3d at 1124.
. . .
Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Defendants for the purpose of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, at best Defendant Hayman suspected Plaintiff, as Mr. Jorgensen’s girlfriend, might be a witness to Mr. Jorgensen’s alleged criminal acts. Defendants could have served Plaintiff with a grand jury subpoena and obtained whatever information she might have possessed through her grand jury testimony. In this manner, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights would not have been violated. However, Defendants did not exercise this option. The Court concludes Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of an unreasonable seizure by taking her into investigative custody without reasonable suspicion of her criminal conduct or probable cause to arrest her. See Heitschmidt, 161 F.3d at 838-39. Additionally, Plaintiff’s detention was unnecessarily degrading, and prolonged, and it involved an undue invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy
.
Detention of 16 minutes during traffic stop was not unreasonable, and the use of a dog during that stop was also not unlawful. United States v. Montes, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43029 (N.D. Okla. June 13, 2007).*
Plaintiff alleged a claim for excessive force for allegations that he was unnecessarily choked for 30-40 seconds while being arrested. The only claims to survive were individual claims against the officers there. Hamilton v. City of Jackson, 508 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (S.D. Ala. 2007).*
City’s entry onto property that the plaintiff loan company was going to sell to another potentially violated the rights of the seller (some views were made from off the property and were objectively reasonable, other views from within, but with alleged consent), but the plaintiff was denied summary judgment and the defendants granted summary judgment because of apparent authority of persons on the premises to allow the entry. Lincoln Loan Co. v. Brown, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43218 (D. Ore. June 13, 2007).*
A traffic stop led the officer to observe a marijuana pipe in plain view, and that justified a search of the car. Glenn v. State, 285 Ga. App. 872, 648 S.E.2d 177 (2007).*
