S.D.Fla.: Raid on a business alleged to be retaliation for political speech survives motion to dismiss

A warrantless raid on a business alleged to have a First Amendment political retaliatory motive survives a motion to dismiss. “Taking the Complaint’s allegations as true, we think that Hernandez’s organizing a raid of Bellas to suppress political speech—‘actions reminiscent of a bygone era,’—qualifies as conduct ‘so egregious that [Hernandez] did not need case law to know what he allegedly did was unlawful,’ Bailey, 843 F.3d at 484 (cleaned up).” “But even if that weren’t the case, binding caselaw from the Eleventh Circuit shows with ‘obvious clarity’ that this sort of retaliation is constitutionally prohibited.” Tundidor v. Hernandez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200922 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2024). [Really bad facts for the defendants, and so Florida.]

The officer stopped plaintiff’s car because it was looked quite similar to one he was told to watch out for because it was stolen. He didn’t realize it wasn’t the right car until after plaintiff resisted and a dog was deployed against plaintiff. The force used was not excessive. Benfer v. City of Baytown, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27907 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024).*

There was an anonymous report of bad driving, and the officer observed some of it, and that justified the stop. Mack v. State, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 788 (Nov. 5, 2024).*

Plaintiff’s federal suit against a bankruptcy trustee was barred by the Barton doctrine. It had to be brought within the bankruptcy case. Juravin v. Fla. Bankr. Tr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28043 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Retaliation. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.