SD: Low crime rural area activity was reasonable suspicion

Suspicious conduct in a low crime rural area was worthy of looking into, and that quickly developed into reasonable suspicion. State v. Noteboom, 2008 SD 114, 758 N.W.2d 457 (2008).

The fact the D.C. jail permitted U.S. Marshals to take custody of plaintiff and serve an arrest warrant on him is not a Fourth Amendment claim. Bailey v. United States Marshal Serv., 584 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. November 3, 2008)*:

Bailey cannot derive a personal constitutional tort from an issue of comity between two sovereigns. Bailey cites several cases which involved a dispute between two sovereigns regarding personal jurisdiction of one in custody. But here, there was no dispute between two sovereigns. According to the complaint, Bailey’s custodian, the District of Columbia, willingly relinquished custody upon request of the federal marshals presenting a facially valid arrest warrant. The conduct of the D.C. jail officials and the federal marshals did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment or common law prohibitions on false arrest and false imprisonment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.