CA9: DC erred in defining 4A at too “high [a] level of generality”; school officials get QI

Plaintiff was restrained in school for behavioral problems. The case law is not clear as to whether this was a Fourth Amendment violation or not because some restraint in school is reasonable. The district court found a Fourth Amendment violation but defined the question at too “high [a] level of generality.” Qualified immunity applies. A.T. v. Baldo, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38325 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2019).*

2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress on the ground that the search warrant here was not sufficiently particular to satisfy the Fourth Amendment fails on the merits. It was particular. Wilhelm v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219845 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 23, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.