D.Minn.: PO knowing def’s history saw a bulge in def’s pocket, and this was justification for a search

Defendant was on supervised release. The officer “then saw a bulge in Becerra’s pocket that he suspected could be a weapon. [He thus] had probable cause at the time he arrested Becerra to believe that Becerra was violating his supervised release conditions and may be under the influence of methamphetamine and carrying a weapon.” United States v. Becerra, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188147 (D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187192 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2017).

Assigning the plaintiff to Ad Seg violated his due process and Fourth Amendment rights, but the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. No case says assignment to Ad Seg based on past history is unreasonable. Being mistaken isn’t necessarily unconstitutional. Allah v. Milling, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23631 (2d Cir. Nov. 22, 2017).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.