Officers made no attempt to corroborate informant’s information about the defendant, and this made the patdown unreasonable. United States v. Singleton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32822 (W.D. N.Y. April 21, 2008):<\/p>\n
While I am not prepared to state categorically that the absence of any information as to a reliable informant’s basis of knowledge, where it is coupled with the absence of meaningful corroboration, dooms any effort to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, I am not prepared to find that this is the unusual case. My research has not disclosed any cases determining that reasonable suspicion existed where the allegations of illegality were so conclusory in nature and where so little was known about the basis of knowledge and so little done to corroborate the information. I do not lightly or easily reach my conclusion that reasonable suspicion was lacking, and I acknowledge that the facts of this case present no reason to doubt the honesty of the officers or the informant. That said, a simple inquiry by the officers as to the informant’s basis for believing that Singleton was dealing drugs and possessed a gun would have revealed whether the information deserved credence, disregard or further investigation. The fact that the informant provided reliable information on multiple occasions in the past does not justify dispensing with that brief inquiry, in my judgment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Update: USDJ rejected this in United States v. Singleton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33377 (W.D. N.Y. April 21, 2009), posted April 24, 2009.<\/p>\n
In a civil case over the propriety of issuance of a search warrant, the plaintiff’s failure to include the affidavit for the warrant in the summary judgment papers was virtually fatal to the claim because there was nothing on which the court could conclude the warrant was not issued with probable cause. By all accounts of the remainder, however, the officers had qualified immunity because the search would have been valid under the good faith exception. Lojas v. Washington, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32940 (E.D. Wash. April 22, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff’s handcuffing during arrest for alleged sex crimes was reasonable, and he admittedly never complained about the handcuffs being too tight or hurting his shoulder. Fifield v. Barrancotta, 545 F. Supp. 2d 307 (W.D. N.Y. 2008):<\/p>\n
In light of the severity of Fifield’s crimes, his prior violent assault of a police officer, his known history of maintaining a cache of weapons in his home, and his expressed desire not to accompany the officers to the police station, I find that the defendants’ de minimis use of force — specifically, the placing of Fifield’s arms behind his back, applying handcuffs and administering a routine pat-down search — was objectively reasonable based upon the undisputed facts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading