Preliminary injunction against lawful searches not likely to recur must be denied

Preliminary injunction against future alleged unconstitutional acts has to be denied because the chances of recurrence are slim. Dingler v. City of Southaven, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53544 (N.D. Miss. June 11, 2008):

The plaintiff has not identified a single example of a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction he seeks does not issue. Indeed, the only relief the plaintiff seeks in the instant motion is for the defendants to stop committing “further unconstitutional acts.” In other words, he seeks an order from the court requiring the defendants to abide by the law. Citizens are already required to obey the law; as such, the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction would be superfluous. For these reasons, the plaintiff has not alleged facts to support two of the four elements required to obtain relief. His claims do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and he does not face a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue.

As such, the instant motion for a preliminary injunction shall be denied. A judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue today.

State agriculture inspector entered upon defendant’s property by consent to investigate whether dirty water was being injected into the ground to hide it. Defendant gave consent to the inspector to inspect the wells, so the search was within the scope of consent. United States v. King, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54090 (D. Idaho July 11, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.