Code enforcement officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by entering defendant’s apartment building property to investigate claims that electrical meters had been bypassed in a way that was dangerous to anybody coming near it. They also have qualified immunity. Lease v. Tyler, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49743 (M.D. Pa. June 30, 2008).*<\/p>\n
A Toledo Municipal Ordinance requiring convenience stores to make surveillance videos of the activity inside of stores went too far under the Fourth Amendment because the videotaping included when the stores were closed and production of the videotape for the police was required without cause. The ordinance appears to impose unconstitutional conduct, so plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The purpose of the ordinance to record potential crime was valid, but production of the tapes for periodic inspections was not. Midwest Retailer Associated v. City of Toledo, 563 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Ohio 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s car was blocked in by police officers, so he was not free to leave. United States v. Corvera-Leal, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50078 (D. Utah July 1, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading