Plaintiff’s losing criminal case where the search in his case was litigated and lost was collateral estoppel, applying Nebraska law to this issue. He argued that the state courts incorrectly decided his claim. James v. City of Omaha, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9368 (D. Neb. February 7, 2008):<\/p>\n
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim in this \u00a7 1983 action is barred by collateral estoppel. Plaintiff had multiple opportunities at his criminal trial, and in his subsequent civil lawsuit, to litigate the validity of the police officers’ search of his vehicle and seizure of his firearm. After Plaintiff fully litigated the validity of the search and seizure in the criminal proceedings, the county court entered a final judgment in the matter. Plaintiff appealed the county court’s denials of his motions to suppress, and the court’s decisions were not overturned by the appellate courts. Therefore, because Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims were actually litigated and decided on their merits, this subsequent \u00a7 1983 action based on those same claims is barred.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant’s claim he could not be speeding because “nobody with drugs in the car would speed” was rejected. “Another problem with the Defendant’s argument is that it is always irrational to commit traffic violations while drugs are in the car, yet this happens all the time. The reporters are filled with such cases.” He argued over what the speed limit was at the spot of the stop, but the officer’s incentive not to lie about what the speed limit is would be the adverse employment consequences. United States v. Moore, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9384 (N.D. Ind. February 7, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading