A question to a motorist about tattoos during a stop because they might have been prison tattoos wasn’t shown to be related to officer safety and was thus unreasonable. “Here, the circuitous, propensity-based inquiry about defendant’s incarceration history was predicated on speculation about the appearance of defendant’s tattoos. These questions did not address a circumstance-specific threat to officer safety, and they were not objectively reasonable. A question about weapons might have satisfied the test Jimenez requires, but the inquiry here did not.” State v. Gilkey, 317 Or. App. 752 (Feb. 24, 2022).
Plaintiff stated a claim against a county code inspector for entering his garage. The defense claim the garage was not on the curtilage and was in “open fields” is rejected, despite there being 4.3 acres total. Defendant had access though a gap in a fence not accessible to the general public. Cupp v. Smith, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31765 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 23, 2022).*
Stone bars petitioner’s 2254 habeas Fourth Amendment claim [which is also not even mentioned to be an ineffective assistance of counsel claim]. Moody v. Mears, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32478 (D.Del. Feb. 24, 2022).*