CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

Plaintiff was arrested for child pornography when officers executed a search warrant at his house based on a video uploaded via the IP address and router in the house. There was probable cause for the arrest, but not for the continued detention after a forensic report didn’t produce any sign of the video. “In the present case, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether probable cause for Jones’ continued detention dissolved once Murray received the results of the forensic examination on January 11, 2014. It could be reasonably inferred that the Commonwealth lacked the evidence it needed to continue its prosecution of Jones once the forensic examination failed to connect Jones’ devices with the video. In fact, the prosecutors admitted that it was the weakness of the forensic report relative to Daniel’s report that justified the dismissal of charges.” Jones v. Clark County, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15855 (6th Cir. May 18, 2020).

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Computer and cloud searches, Overseizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.