The operator of a Florida assisted living facility was the subject of three unannounced inspections by Florida regulators. The first inspection gave them cause to come back. An assisted living center under Florida law is a regulated industry subject to such inspections. He sued pro se and lost. Grier v. Florida, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45354 (M.D. Fla. November 1, 2005):<\/p>\n
Curiously, Plaintiff concedes in bold print in his complaint that “[a]t all time relevant hereto regulatory scheme right of entry and inspection, was and is an adequate substitution for a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Complaint at P 7). His concession is both correct and fatal to his claim as the investigations conducted at his Facility are expressly excepted from the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.<\/p>\n
To the extent Plaintiff argues that the Florida Statute itself runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment by permitting warrantless searches, his claim also fails. It is well established that, while the Fourth Amendment is applicable to searches of commercial property, the “expectation of privacy in commercial premises\u2026is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in an individual’s home.” New York v. Burger,<\/em> 482 U.S. 691, 699-700 (1987). Indeed, “certain industries have such a history of oversight that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.” Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., <\/em>436 U.S. 307, 313 (1978); ….<\/p>\n
[Nursing homes are a regulated industry. Blue v. Koren, 72 F.3d 1075, 1081 (2d Cir. 1995).] <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officer’s interaction with the defendant for credit card fraud was voluntary, but it was still based on reasonable suspicion from a call from the store security. The court credits that the defendant offered to have his pockets searched. Finding a credit card on him in the name of another was probable cause to arrest. United States v. Santiago, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52094 (E.D. Mo. July 18, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Officer showed probable cause for search warrant for contents of safe deposit box which led to a forfeiture action. Claimant’s motion for summary judgment denied. United States v. $55,000.00 in United States Currency from Safe Deposit Box 74 at Ridgedale State Bank, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52030 (D. Minn. July 17, 2007.*<\/p>\n
State court’s denial of discretionary review of a search claim is still a decision on the merits and not denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate it for habeas purposes. Carter v. Wengler, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52019 (D. Minn. July 16, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Ineffective assistance claim rejected on the merits without a hearing based on defense counsel’s affidavit that there was no reasonable basis for filing a motion to suppress defendant’s search because it was based on probable cause. Brown v. State<\/a>, 931 A.2d 436 (Del. 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading