“[T]he Fourth Amendment is not implicated simply because an individual violates state law.”

“It is well-established that ‘the Fourth Amendment is not implicated simply because an individual violates state law.’ Armstead v. Township of Upper Dublin, 347 F. Supp. 2d 188, 194 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (discussing an arrest outside the officer’s jurisdiction in apparent violation of the MPJA). See also, Baker v. McCollan, 442 U.S. 137, 144 (1979). McDonald v. Darby Borough, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77774 (E.D. Pa. October 2, 2008).*

Evidence supported the conclusion that the consenter had apparent authority to consent. United States v. Torres, 294 Fed. Appx. 940 (5th Cir. October 2, 2008) (unpublished).*

In ruling on all motions pending in a case, the defendant filed a motion to suppress a warrantless search, but the government contended it was with a warrant and provided it, and no further explanation was filed. So, the motion is denied. United States v. Glover, 583 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D. D.C. October 3, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.