CA7: A mere touching to make somebody move along who was hostile probably is not an unreasonable seizure, and the jury was properly instructed

When police responded to a commotion call at a Wal-Mart, the officer’s touching plaintiff’s arm was “more exhortatory than commanding” in an attempt to defuse the situation, so it was not a seizure that was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court properly instructed the jury. Carlson v. Bukovic, 621 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010).*

Pro se plaintiff did not state a claim for his strip search on movement from one jail to another, despite his claim it was “degrading.” There was no Eighth Amendment claim at all. Jackson v. Herrington, 393 Fed. Appx. 348 (6th Cir. 2010).*

Defendant’s stop was with probable cause under the collective knowledge of the police agencies involved. Alternatively, it was supported by reasonable suspicion, and consent developed. United States v. Lyons, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89774 (E.D. Mich. February 22, 2010).*

Even if the CI was not fully believable, the surveillance of the defendant was enough for the search warrant to issue, so the suppression motion is denied without a hearing. A Franks claim fails because it is conclusory. United States v. Chiprez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90622 (E.D. Wash. July 26, 2010).*