CA4: That Bivens shouldn’t recognize this claim wasn’t raised below and it’s waived

“Here, the officers argue that their case – notwithstanding its similarities to Bivens, which likewise involved a Fourth Amendment claim against federal law enforcement officers – presents a ‘new Bivens context,’ and that allowing it to proceed runs afoul of Abbasi. Crucially, the officers raise this argument for the first time on appeal: At no point during the lengthy proceedings in the district court did the officers argue or even suggest that Hicks lacked a cause of action under Bivens. We thus conclude that this argument is forfeited on appeal.” Hicks v. Ferreyra, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21803 (4th Cir. July 14, 2020).*

Defendant argued he did not validly waive his Fourth Amendment rights for probation searches, but the court finds he did in fact waive in his plea. “The trial court concluded that a plea cannot be taken without certain advisals, including one regarding imposition of a search condition, which it presumed was provided here.” People v. Vargas, 2020 Cal. LEXIS 4311 (July 13, 2020).

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

Comments are closed.