CA5: There was PC for defendant’s arrest; a typo in when the SW was served doesn’t make a § 1983 claim

Plaintiff “Xie worked as a professor and researcher at MDA for several years.” MDA believed he computer manipulated a document submitted to the state for expense reimbursement and opened an investigation. That led to search warrants for his electronics. There was a typographic error on the warrant that showed it executed at 1:04 am rather than 1:04 pm which was accurate. The parties agree there was a mistake. That typo can’t form the basis of a § 1983 claim against the officer. His false arrest claim fails. There was probable cause for it even though the criminal case later was dismissed. Xie v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37005 (5th Cir. Dec. 15, 2021).

It’s not ineffective assistance for defense counsel to not raise a meritless Fourth Amendment claim. Clark v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238976 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 15, 2021).*

A wildlife officer responding to a call to a poaching tip line encountered “Ted from Minnesota” about taking an antlered deer. The stop and encounter was with reasonable suspicion because the officer already knew defendant had an out-of-state hunting license for only unantlered deer. Then he saw in plain view marijuana and paraphernalia in defendant’s truck. State v. Buselmeier, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 1057 (Dec. 15, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.