CA7: Ptf’s civil Franks claim survives SJ because it stated a claim

“Here, a reasonable jury could find that Buonadonna intentionally or recklessly included material false statements and withheld material exculpatory information. Buonadonna admits that he read the protective order and knew that it did not bar communication between Klein and Salatas. Yet, he told the judge in his affidavit that the protective order ‘signed by a Judge and filed in open court’ forbade such communication. This was a bald misrepresentation. [¶] For his part, Buonadonna insists that he believed the order was incomplete because it conflicted with the information in the Indiana database and Salatas’s erroneous recollection of the order’s contents. But, as his counsel acknowledged, the information in the database is based upon the actual orders themselves. Thus, between an actual protective order and the database, a reasonable officer would know that the order controls.” Klein v. Town of Schererville, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 365 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2023).

2255 petitioner’s search claim fails for the reason already rejected on direct appeal: No standing. United States v. Sierra-Serrano, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2916 (D. Minn. Jan. 6, 2023).*

Blocking defendant’s car from behind was a seizure, and here it was with reasonable suspicion. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, including Sergeant Egan’s decades-long training and experience, along with the fact that the 911 call was placed by an identified eyewitness to a suspected felony in progress, we conclude that he had reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop of the Kia.” Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 2023 PA Super 6, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 9 (Jan. 9, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.