A defendant who had pled guilty and who had refused consent to search before the police sought consent from another was allowed to withdraw his plea based on Randolph being decided after the plea. United States v. Hughes, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94138 (W.D. N.C. December 29, 2006). (Note: Randolph was decided March 22, 2006.)
§ 1983 claim filed by pretrial detainee over his arrest was dismissed on the merits of probable cause to arrest and under Heck‘s requirement that he have already prevailed on the search in state court. Hawthorne v. Sheriff of Broward County, 212 Fed. Appx. 943 (11th Cir. 2007):
Under Heck, a state prisoner may not bring a claim for damages under § 1983 “if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372. Thus, unless the plaintiff-prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated, the complaint must be dismissed. Id. Here, Hawthorne contends that the Officers falsely stated that he committed the offenses for which he is now incarcerated. To prevail on this claim, Hawthorne must necessarily establish that he did not commit the offenses for which he was convicted. Hence, a judgment in Hawthorne’s favor on this claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his underlying convictions. Because Hawthorne has not demonstrated that his convictions have already been invalidated, this claim is barred under Heck. See id. at 487, 114 S. Ct. at 2372.
Officers who were tailing a fugitive who had consent to enter to look for him handcuffed the plaintiff because he bore a resemblance to the fugitive. The officers swept the premises, did not find the fugitive, and determined that the plaintiff was not him, so they let him go. They were entitled to qualified immunity from suit. el Bey v. Roop, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93995 (S.D. Ohio December 29, 2006).*
The use of a Taser on a student who was unruly during an arrest at school and refused to calm down before it was used, where the use of the Taser was within department policy, entitled the officers to qualified immunity. RT v. Cincinnati Pub. Schs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94004 (S.D. Ohio December 29, 2006).
Statement made to the Coast Guard Investigative Service was predicated on false information from CGIS, and that required that the statements be suppressed. United States v. Schroder, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94070 (S.D. Ala. July 6, 2006):
In light of this concession and the evidence presented, the court finds that, whether deliberate or not, CGIS materially mislead defendant about the nature of the investigation on April 12, 2006. A letter of predication was issued on March 13, 2006, which unequivocally directed the CGIS to conduct a criminal investigation targeting defendant Schroder. Under the circumstances of this case, any involvement in the investigation by CGIS after the letter of predication was issued was related to CGIS’ criminal investigation of defendant. Thus, the court finds that on April 12, 2006, whether Agent Lee responded that it was not a criminal investigation, or simply stated that they had expanded the investigation and were there to gather more facts, the statement was misleading. It is undisputed that defendant’s attorney specifically asked whether this was a criminal investigation. Under either version, Lee’s response was at least evasive and incomplete. There was clearly a criminal investigation of defendant at that time and the only truthful and accurate answer was an affirmative one. Whether or not Lee believed he was being truthful, his statement was misleading and inaccurate and resulted in the defendant providing information that he may not have provided otherwise. Thus, the court finds defendant’s motion to suppress is due to be granted as to statements given on April 12, 2006.
§ 2255 petitioner loses on the merits of his search claim, so it is not possible that defense counsel was ineffective. United States v. Boyd, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94166 (W.D. Tenn. December 29, 2006).*
