Officer’s assistance of doctor in forced catheterization was entitled to qualified immunity

Case of police officer’s assistance in a forced catheterization at a doctor’s request entitled the officer to qualified immunity. Meyer v. Woodward, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79358 (E.D. Mich. October 9, 2008).*

Search warrant in a gambling case that was limited to computers used to register bets was sufficiently particular and not overbroad. United States v. Gianelli, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79460 (D. Mass. October 8, 2008).*

Plaintiff adult establishment challenged entries, sort of viewing them as administrative searches which they may not be. Here, however, plaintiff did not show his standing. Garter Belt, Inc. v. Buren, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79227 (E.D. Mich. October 8, 2008):

Although the Supreme Court has recognized an exception to the warrant requirement when the target of the search is a “closely regulated” industry, warrantless searches of even closely regulated businesses must be “carefully limited in time, place, and scope.” New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 700-03, 107 S. Ct. 2636, 96 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1987). One district court has held that while there is a “narrow exception to the warrant requirement for administrative searches conducted in ‘closely regulated’ industries, sexually oriented businesses do not quality as highly regulated industries.” J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. City of Brunswick, 49 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1040 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “[B]ecause sexually oriented businesses enjoy a degree of First Amendment protection, the government probably could not ‘closely regulate’ them … without running afoul of the First Amendment.” Id. A court in this district has recently held that one city’s cabaret ordinance “is likely to violate the Fourth Amendment due to the requirement that an owner ‘open every portion of any cabaret or club cabaret for inspection.” Top Flight, Inc. v. City of Inkster, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12892, 2007 WL 643897 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (emphasis added by the court) (quoting Inkster, Mich., Cabaret Ordinance § 113.202 (2006)).

Nevertheless, “a plaintiff is required to establish injury in fact as to each provision challenged.” Prime Media, 485 F.3d at 350. Garter Belt is bringing a Fourth Amendment challenge to section 22-404(d). The Spoons court “assume[d]” standing, 49 F. Supp. at 1040, and the Top Flight court did not address the question of standing. But Garter Belt has shown no injury or imminent threat of injury under section 22-404(d) and therefore has no standing to challenge it. The Court will dismiss Garter Belt’s Fourth Amendment challenge.