A city rental housing inspection program was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment because there was a process for issuance of administrative warrants when the landlord would not consent. Stewart v. City of Red Wing, 554 F. Supp. 2d 924 (D. Minn. 2008):<\/p>\n
Nor have plaintiffs demonstrated that injury to their Fourth Amendment rights is imminent. If landlords refuse consent to the City’s request for an inspection, the RDLC requires the City to seek an administrative search warrant. The reviewing judge is specifically authorized to condition or limit the scope of the warrant as appropriate. Plaintiffs’ argument that the inspection ordinance creates an imminent constitutional injury presumes that a state court judge, with the benefit of a full adversarial hearing, will be unable to condition or limit the scope of the warrant in a manner that complies with the Fourth Amendment. The Court finds the possibility of such injury to be highly speculative.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The use of blue lights is a stop, but defendant’s flight was a new crime, and that would not be suppressed. State v. Nelson<\/a>, 275 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).<\/p>\n
Vermont upholds its DNA collection statute, over a vigorous dissent, which the majority criticizes. State v. Martin<\/a>, 2008 VT 53, 184 Vt. 23, 955 A.2d 1144 (2008).*<\/p>\n
“Even assuming the deputy seized Mr. Olivares-Campos within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he retained his license and registration, we hold that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity existed at that time sufficient to justify a lawful investigative detention. Mr. Olivares-Campos’s subsequent consent to the search of his truck therefore was not tainted by an illegal seizure, and neither does it bear any other indicia of unlawful coercion.” United States v. Olivares-Campos<\/a>, 276 Fed. Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading