CA9 applies QI standard to “egregious violations” of 4A for ICE entries

ICE entry onto appellant’s curtilage to arrest him was not an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court applying qualified immunity language to show it wasn’t. “At the time of the entry, no binding authority held that an officer’s subjective intent was relevant in evaluating the constitutionality of an entry into the curtilage. See United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir. 2012). The entry was reasonable under then-extant caselaw because it was ‘consistent with an attempt to initiate consensual contact with the occupants of the home.’ Id. at 1188.” Ixchop-Perez v. Barr, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22033 (9th Cir. July 15, 2020).

Defendant’s 12th offense DWI is affirmed. There were exigent circumstances for dispensing with a search warrant for his blood when he was found at the wheel of his car after an accident and the officer had to work it alone. State v. Richards, 2020 Wisc. App. LEXIS 323 (July 16, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Emergency / exigency, Immigration arrests. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.