N.D.Ill: Police reality show producer can be kept in “perp walk”-type case

A police reality show videotaped plaintiff in secure areas of the jail after her arrest, and she sued the network which was showing it. She stated enough to hold in the media defendants under Wilson v. Layne. Frederick v. Biography Channel, 683 F. Supp. 2d 798, 38 Media L. Rep. 1362 (N.D. Ill. 2010).*

A person who says she lives in a dwelling and has keys is a person who can be asked for consent.
United States v. White, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9494 (E.D. Mich. February 4, 2010).*

“Can I ask you a few more questions” after a traffic stop is not a seizure. United States v. Barraza-Martinez, 364 Fed. Appx. 453 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished):

Both defendants rely heavily on Sandoval, in which the Tenth Circuit held the officer’s response of “No, wait a minute,” to the motorist’s question “That’s it?” rendered the subsequent questioning non-consensual. Id. at 542. The present case, however, is distinguishable from Sandoval on two grounds. Unlike Sandoval, Deputy Bentley indicated the original investigative detention was terminated by handing Barraza-Martinez a copy of the warning citation and stating he was free to go. Barraza-Martinez then began opening the patrol car door, demonstrating he understood he was free to leave. Deputy Bentley’s subsequent question, “Hey, William, can I ask you a few more questions?” did not retract Barraza-Martinez’s freedom to leave the patrol car. Unlike the “No, wait a minute” directive at issue in Sandoval, Deputy Bentley’s question, along with his earlier statement that Barraza-Martinez was free to go, served to give a reasonable person in Barraza-Martinez’s position the choice to submit to the additional questions. Barraza-Martinez’s consent to the search of the vehicle was a product of the subsequent consensual exchange. Accordingly, the district court properly denied the defendants’ motions to suppress.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.