E.D.N.Y.: Rooker-Feldman barred § 1983 claim over search litigated in state court

“Applying these standards, the Court concludes that Rooker-Feldman precludes only Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment illegal seizure claim and damages sought amounting to the Property’s value. All four factors of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are present here as to the Fourth Amendment cause of action. Fallica’s claims regarding the foreclosure and sale of the Property were fully and fairly litigated as part of the state court action, and he lost. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding an illegal seizure of the Property, even construed liberally in his favor, essentially challenge the validity of the state court’s judgment.” Fallica v. Bank of America, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95951 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2023).*

The hash values of child pornography was enough for probable cause, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. Lynch v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95963 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94286 (S.D. Tex. May 31, 2023).*

The cell phone here was linked to a drug crime, and the officer had probable cause to believe defendant possessed it. People v. Avdic, 2023 IL App (1st) 210848 (June 2, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Issue preclusion, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.