{"id":2933,"date":"2009-03-21T06:37:43","date_gmt":"2009-02-11T09:25:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-02-11T09:25:12","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2933","title":{"rendered":"CA7: State trial court’s denial of suppression motion in dismissed prosecution was not binding in later \u00a7 1983 case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pretrial suppression denial was only a preliminary ruling, but the state dismissed the case. That holding was not binding in a subsequent \u00a7 1983 action. Best v. City of Portland<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2289 (7th Cir. February 3, 2009):<\/p>\n

In this case the officers argue, and the district court held, that the legality of the searches was necessarily and finally adjudicated in Best’s criminal prosecution and cannot be relitigated. But this argument ignores the preliminary nature of the ruling on Best’s pretrial suppression motion. Under Indiana law, “rulings on pretrial motions are not necessarily final.” Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 393 (Ind. 1997). “‘[A] ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress is not intended to serve as the final expression concerning admissibility.'” Id. (quoting Gajdos v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1017, 1022 (Ind. 1984)). The court was free to reconsider its earlier ruling on the pretrial suppression motion at any time before the evidence was offered at trial. Id. In fact, Best asked the court to do just that before the prosecutor dismissed the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officers had qualified immunity from suit over plaintiff’s detention and placement into a hospital because the ascertainable facts showed that plaintiff was a verifiable suicide threat. Cloaninger v. McDevitt<\/a>, 555 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2009)*:<\/p>\n

Lo knew that Cloaninger had made prior suicide threats, that police had responded to those threats, and that firearms had been found in the home. Treadway called the VA hospital, where a nurse who knew Cloaninger confirmed that he had made prior suicide threats. Treadway had no reason to doubt the objectivity of the nurse or the veracity of her information. Both the VA nurse and the Burke County magistrate agreed that an emergency commitment was an appropriate action. On these undisputed facts, we hold that the defendants had probable cause to seize Cloaninger and detain him for the purposes of a psychological evaluation. But this does not end our inquiry into the reasonableness of their conduct.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}