“While we hold that a protective sweep does not require a prior arrest, we conclude that the district court correctly concluded that the search performed here was not a lawful protective sweep because it was not based on articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that the premises harbored a dangerous individual. The district court’s order, however, did not indicate the specific evidence that was improperly seized as a result of the protective sweep or as its fruit. Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for the district court to clarify the evidence that falls within the purview of the suppression order and which items were permissibly seized by law enforcement.” State v. McCall, 2022 Nev. LEXIS 61 (Sep. 22, 2022).
The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on pro se plaintiff’s claim they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. There was at least reasonable suspicion for this parole search. Corradi v. N.J. State Parole Bd., No. U.S. App. LEXIS 26695 (3d Cir. Sep. 23, 2022).*
“Here, White does not offer persuasive evidence that the affidavit had omissions, lies, or misstatements that were recklessly or intentionally made. In fact, White does not contend that statements in the affidavit are necessarily false. White only contends that the veracity or reliability of the ‘source’ who gave Investigator Purvis the information, which was used in the affidavit for the search warrant, is questionable because no information is provided about the informant. (Doc, 29, at 4). Otherwise, White has not alleged that Investigator Purvis has manufactured the informant, lied about the informant, or that Investigator Purvis should have known that informant was lying.” This is not a Franks claim. United States v. White, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171974 (M.D. Ga. Sep. 22, 2022).*