“No, you can check me” in response to a request to frisk is consent

Frisk was by consent. “The district court found that Miles consented to the search when, upon being asked whether he had any weapons, he answered, ‘No, you can check me,’ and put his hands in the air.” United States v. Miles, 263 Fed. Appx. 77 (2d Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

Officers had probable cause to believe that plaintiff was suicidal when he was taken in for psychiatric evaluation, so they had qualified immunity. Simon v. Cook, 261 Fed. Appx. 873, 2008 FED App. 0086N (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

There is no military version of Bivens action for a Franks claim. Flowers v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 201 (Ct. Fed. Claims. 2008):

The court cannot adjudicate plaintiff’s allegations that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the Army’s alleged “concealing and omitting evidence from the military judge” in order to obtain a search warrant. 11 Am. Compl. PP 47-48, 50; Pl.’s Resp. 4. The Fourth Amendment provides no right to money damages for its breach. U.S. Const. amend. IV; LaChance v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 127, 130 (1988) (“[T]he fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the United States.” (citing Shaw v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 796, 800 (1985))). Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s search and seizure claims.