Plaintiff in \u00a7 1983 search case got it to the jury as to one defendant of ten solely on a protective sweep claim. He asked the jury for $100,000 but the jury awarded $1 which was affirmed on appeal. Attorneys fees were denied. Greer v. Yavapai County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54439 (D. Ariz. July 26, 2007):<\/p>\n
A technical violation by Deputy Morgan of a complex constitutional right while under the fear of “a man with a gun,” which a jury determined entitled Plaintiff to nominal damages, falls short of significant benefits to Plaintiff or society in general. Plaintiff has failed to outline any specific nonmonetary benefits that were achieved, but instead erroneously rests on the general assertion that a significant public policy interest was served in the award of nominal damages in this litigation.<\/p>\n
“Where the only reasonable fee is no fee, an award of fees would be unjust; conversely where a fee award would be unjust, the reasonable fee is no fee at all.” Farrar<\/em>, 506 U.S. at 118. (O’Connor, J., concurring). Upon an analysis of the extent of relief, public purpose served, and significance of the legal issues, the Court concludes that Plaintiff received a purely technical victory when he was awarded a nominal damages award that resulted in no significant nonmonetary benefits to him or society.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Stop of defendant on a bicycle for violation of a local licensing ordinance was justified, and officers could see a knife in his back pocket, and that justified a frisk. United States v. Gomez-Isaguirres, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54471 (D. Kan. July 26, 2007):<\/p>\n
[W]e believe the case law supports a finding that the officers were justified in conducting a pat-down search of defendant after they saw what looked like a knife in defendant’s back pocket. A knife like the one possessed by defendant is a dangerous weapon whether or not it is illegal under Kansas law. The knife in this case was particularly threatening because it could be opened in a split second. Such a knife observed during a Terry<\/em> stop justifies an officer taking reasonable protective measures. Those measures include patting down a detainee to determine whether that person has other weapons. The fact that the stop occurred in a high crime area known for drugs, gang activity and violence adds to the reasonableness of the protective action taken by the officers. On the basis of the facts of this case and the above-described case law, the court shall reject defendant’s argument that the pat-down search was illegal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading