CA2: Innocent 9/11 detainees arrested in 2002 stated a claim for relief for conditions of confinement in federal detention

After 9/11, 762 people were detained, some without the slightest probable cause. This case arose in 2002 after these plaintiffs were detained, held for months, sometimes in conditions sounding like they were war criminals, and later released. It’s a really long opinion with a dissent, but here’s the concluding paragraph: “For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s decision on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions. More specifically, we conclude that: (1) the MDC Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a substantive due process claim against the DOJ Defendants, against Hasty with regard to both official and unofficial conditions, and against Sherman with regard to official conditions only, and these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (2) the MDC Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the DOJ Defendants, Hasty, and Sherman, and these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (3) the free exercise claim is dismissed as to all Defendants; (4) the MDC Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their Fourth Amendment strip search claim against Hasty and Sherman, and these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; (5) the MDC Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim against the DOJ Defendants, Hasty, and Sherman, and these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; and (6) the MDC Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any claims against Zenk.” Turkmen v. Hasty, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10160 (2d Cir. June 17, 2015).

Defendant argued on appeal that the “testimony of the police officers at the pretrial suppression hearing that he voluntarily opened his trunk was incredible and patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections.” The credibility determinations support the denial of the motion that it was consensual. The dissent says the state didn’t meet his “heavy burden” on consent. People v. Barnes, 2015 NY Slip Op 05200, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5102 (2d Dept. June 17, 2015).*

Defendant was sued after he was fired to recover a laptop with trade secrets and company information on it. An order to produce was filed. His argument that this violated the Fourth Amendment is undeveloped and treated as waived. Teledyne Technologies, Inc. v. Shekar, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78224 (N.D.Ill. June 17, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.