Video surveillance in a police locker room to look for vandalism was not clearly established to be a constitutional violation, particularly here where the video camera did not work. State action was also not clear. [Case is interesting because it summarizes the caselaw of locker room video surveillance.] Devittorio v. Hall, 589 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).*<\/p>\n
Evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that defendant’s consent during his traffic stop was consensual. United States v. Gurrola<\/a>, 301 Fed. Appx. 337 (5th Cir. 2008)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n Defendant consented to a search of his car which produced nothing. He first consented then revoked consent to search his person, and the officer believed he was secreting drugs under an Ace bandage wrapped around his midsection. Defendant was arrested for felon in possession of a firearm and then validly searched incident to that. United States v. Sims<\/a>, 302 Fed. Appx. 195 (4th Cir. 2008)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading