E.D.N.Y.: Admin search power doesn’t give govt power to search for ulterior motive

Plaintiff operates 20 pawnshops in NYC. The NYPD conducted records searches without subpoena or warrant, and, after a two-week trial, plaintiff prevailed with a $1m verdict. The fact a business has to maintain records doesn’t mean there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in them from governmental interference. Plaintiff participated in the city’s pawnshop leads program, but it got out. It claimed the searches were to make it want to rejoin, and the jury could have found that. Administrative searches for regulatory purposes are permissible, but the jury found a different motive. Gem Fin. Serv. v. City of New York, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131092 (E.D.N.Y. July 28, 2023).

“Although the categories of information that Apple was to produce encompassed the entirety of Pelayo’s iCloud account, the search and seizure of evidence was limited to the outlined crimes and specified twenty-one types of evidence that the government could seize.” Therefore, the warrant was particular enough. United States v. Pelayo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19624 (9th Cir. July 31, 2023).*

The stop was for no tag, but the officer quickly saw that there was a temporary tag. He could still approach the car to tell the driver why the stop occurred, but that was it. Deciding to go off into asking about other things was unreasonable. People v. Suggs, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 580 (3d Dist. July 31, 2023).

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Computer and cloud searches, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.