CA10: Traffic stop to flirt with a motorist violates clearly established law

A traffic stop to flirt with a motorist violates clearly established law. But this is a more complicated. “Ultimately, Plaintiff’s appeal rises and falls on the question of whether Defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law. To the degree that Defendant acted in his role as a patrolman when he stopped Leyva to flirt with her, we conclude he violated clearly established law. But our caselaw did not put Defendant on notice that he occupied a such position of authority over Leyva when acting as HDTR Coordinator that he would have known his actions violated clearly established law.” Shepherd v. Robbins, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34191 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2022).

Four vehicles on defendant’s property were searched, and the fact the officers intermingled what was recovered from all shows the investigatory motive for the search. The government did not claim the warrant authorized searches of vehicles on the premises. United States v. Farah, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223030 (D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2022). The District Judge, however, disagreed on review of the R&R. United States v. Farah, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221984 (D. Minn., Dec. 9, 2022).*

If there was a mistake of law on the basis for this stop, it was reasonable. United States v. Gonzalez-Perez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223019 (D. Neb. Nov. 9, 2022).*