N.D.Ohio: Refusing discovery on 4A grounds in forfeiture case results in no standing

On remand from the Sixth Circuit in this forfeiture case on the question of standing, claimant asserted Fourth Amendment privilege to all discovery requests about his standing to claim the money. The court finds no facts for standing means no standing. United States v. $774,830.00 in United States Currency, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51965 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2024), on remand from United States v. $774,830.00 in U.S. Currency, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3624 (6th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023).

This search warrant in a fraud case is particular because of incorporated documents and limiting the search to records of nine entities. United States v. Yanping Wang, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51531 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2024).*

Plaintiff, an alleged school bully, was told to remove his shoes and sweatshirt to look for banned items from school. This was not a strip search, as it was alleged, and it was justified and reasonable. Having decided that, qualified immunity doesn’t even have to be decided. Vlahopolous v. Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51625 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Forfeiture, Particularity, School searches, Standing, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.