CA11: Officers reasonably concluded that this was one residence without apartments

“At the time the officers swore out and executed the warrant, the officers believed 4279 Violet Circle was a single-family home that Schmitz occupied.” The officers’ investigation for months never indicated that the premises included three efficiency apartments. “In sum, Schmitz has failed to show that the officers in this case knew or should have known that 4279 Violet Circle was a multi-unit residence. Indeed, the record reflects that officers reasonably believed, based on a reasonable investigation, that the residence was a single-family home when they sought the first search warrant. Accordingly, the warrant was valid.” United States v. Schmitz, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24903 (11th Cir. Sep. 25, 2025).

Plaintiffs prevailed in the wrongful seizure claim and the jury awarded $5,000, $1, and $10,000 in punitives. This supported an attorney’s fees award of $356,405 and costs of $2,266.55. The settlement offer was $80,000. (The top hourly rate was $500 then adjusted for various things.) Cremeans v. Taczak, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190283 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 26, 2025).*

Defendant’s driving showed a traffic offense and, during the stop, the occupants feigned being asleep. This was on a corridor of immigrant smuggling, and it all added up to reasonable suspicion to continue the stop. United States v. Bohn, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190012 (D. Ariz. Sep. 25, 2025).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Automobile exception, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.