N.D.Ga.: Talking about using drug dog in def’s presence was not “interrogation”

Discussing in defendant’s presence that they were going to use a drug dog as a part of their search was not “interrogation” under Innis. “Here, the conduct of the officers in discussing their investigation within hearing range of the defendant (including their plans to deploy the dog) was less likely to elicit an incriminating response than the conversation of the officers in Innis. Therefore, Innis dictates the finding that the officers’ discussion in the presence of the defendant was not the functional equivalent of interrogation.” United States v. Gordon, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89140 (N.D.Ga. June 9, 2015).*

Plaintiff was a prison guard. A lawful wiretap on her son revealed that she had a personal relationship with an inmate’s family in violation of Department of Corrections policy. It made it back to the prison, and she sued the municipal police for that. She didn’t state a claim for municipal liability from mere one time usage. Morton v. Arnold, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11916 (3d Cir. July 10, 2015).*

The traffic stop video supports the conclusion that defendant was following a truck too close, and that supports the stop. United States v. Gonzalez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90116 (N.D.Tex. July 1, 2015).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.