While the self-incrimination clause does not provide a cause of action, the seizure that led to it does

Former TSA employee was interrogated about theft of $20 found in a bin of discarded lighters, a $20 bill he alerted somebody to when he saw it. He claimed to be held incommunicado and interrogated for hours without Miranda warnings and told that he would be imprisoned if he did not confess. He confessed, was fired, and later sued. He stated a claim for relief under the Fourth Amendment. Galindo v. Arrington, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56391 (W.D. Tex. July 18, 2007)*:

Here, Defendants first argue that courts have rejected the idea of “a stand-alone false confession claim based on the Fourth Amendment, rather than the Fifth Amendment or the due process clauses.” However; the Court disagrees with the Defendants’ simplistic framing of Plaintiff’s cause of action. Accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, the Court finds at this stage Plaintiff’s allegations amount to more than a simple “stand-alone false confession claim” and state a valid seizure of a person claim.

Officers corrobrated named informants information with their own observations, so there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant by the state judge that led to federal prosecution. United States v. Crissler, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (D. N.D. 2007).*

Seizure of drugs from the defendant was not from exploitation of an illegal arrest where the defendant struggled with the officers and fled and abandoned drugs while running. His own illegal act was the cause of the abandonment, not the police, as in the dicta in Hodari D. People v. Keys, 375 Ill. App. 3d 459, 874 N.E.2d 577 (4th Dist. 2007).

Search warrant for the first floor of a building was not exceeded where suspects fled up the stairs after the forcible entry, and the officers followed them in hot pursuit. Officers found a gun and money upstairs where one defendant was hiding. Officers were also excused from knocking and announcing since somebody inside looked out the window and saw them coming and quickly moved away. They also had information about weapons inside. State v. Morrison, 2007 Ohio 3895, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3540 (8th Dist. August 2, 2007).*

In a related appeal from the same raid, the court also held that the warrant for the “curtilage, common and storage areas” allowed searches of a car in the driveway and a common basement. Another address found from information in the car was properly searched with a warrant. A sweep of that apartment before receiving the warrant was proper, given a concern that evidence could be destroyed. State v. Mitchell, 2007 Ohio 3896, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3553 (8th Dist. August 2, 2007).* The third related case is State v. Williams, 2007 Ohio 3897, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3551 (8th Dist. August 2, 2007).*

Defendant’s car was stopped on the side of the road at night, so the officer pulled over to check on the driver, and he was found drunk. The encounter was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Conte, 2007 PA Super 232, 931 A.2d 690 (2007).*