CA3: Merely being on bail isn’t a seizure without serious restrictions

An employment dispute devolved into plaintiff’s arrest for theft of email and a claim of official misconduct. She was acquitted and sued. “Unlike the Appellants in Black or Gallo, Lentz did not experience any significant pretrial restrictions such as extensive travel or onerous bail requirements. See Black, 835 F.3d at 367 (noting that ‘merely attending trial does not amount to a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes’). Under a totality of the circumstances approach, Lentz fails to plausibly plead facts to establish she was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” Lentz v. Taylor, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32868 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2021).

“The premise of O’Neal’s argument — that Ainsworth intentionally included materially false information in the affidavit — is dubious. We see no reason to view the several-month difference in dates as material. Nor does the mistake appear to have been intentional. See United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44, 49 (1st Cir. 2015) (errors that are clearly only negligent do not call for a Franks hearing). In any event, we agree with the district court that O’Neal’s motion was untimely. All of the relevant information was available to O’Neal before his trial began. Counsel admits noticing the error on the first day of trial, but chose to wait to see what the verdict would be before raising the issue. O’Neal has therefore not provided any ‘good cause’ for the delayed filing of his request.” United States v. O’Neal, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 32885 (1st Cir. Nov. 4, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Seizure, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.