A student accidently brought a utility knife to school that had been left in his book bag. When the school administrators later found out about it, they took him home to recover it. The parents and student sued over the search of the house, which could not be entered on alleged consent of the student. D’Allesandro v. Brumbaugh, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84914 (N.D. Ill. October 22, 2008)<\/p>\n
However, such considerations are not pertinent in light of the unique facts in the instant action. None of the cases cited by Defendants involved a situation where the purported consenting party was a minor under the supervision and control of a government official. The undisputed record indicates that it was not Tyler that took Brumbaugh to the Residence to retrieve the Knife, but it was Brumbaugh who placed Tyler in his car and drove him to the Residence in order to retrieve the Knife, and during all this time, Tyler was “under defendant Brumbaugh’s supervision and control. …” (Ans. PSJ 5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The informant gave information about the defendant in two calls and a face to face meeting, and he could have been subject to prosecution for false information. The police partially corroborated the informant with innocent details. The defendant got in a car and left when he saw officers. This was all reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Carstarphen<\/a>, 298 Fed. Appx. 151 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Prison cell search and seizure of UCC related materials and copyrighting names which was contraband under prison policy was not unreasonable. Edmonds v. Sobina, 296 Fed. Appx. 214 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading