N.D.Ala.: Strieff applied to a possibly negligent look through a garage window when OnStar reported location of stolen car

A Cadillac was stolen from a car dealer, and it was tracked by OnStar in the car. Police came to do a knock-and-talk. Two cars were in the carport that weren’t the stolen car. They looked through a window of the garage and saw what matched the stolen car. The OnStar report was an intervening act under Strieff, and the look in the window was at worst negligence the police and there would be no suppression. United States v. Ratcliff, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108240 (N.D.Ala. Aug. 16, 2016).

A prison medical care company laptop was stolen from a car, and inmates sued over the alleged leak of their medical care information. They included a Fourth Amendment claim which hardly applies to employee negligence leading to a theft. All the inmate suits are dismissed as frivolous. Guess v. Cal. Corr. Health Care Servs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108647 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)*; Sepulveda v. Cal. Corr. Healthcare Servs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108652 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)*; Monteiro v. Cal. Corr. Healthcare Servs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108653 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)*; Garza v. Cal. Correcitonal Healthcare Servs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108665 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 16, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.