Alleged strip search of arrestee in public survives summary judgment because it cannot be reasonable. Moore v. Hearle, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50064 (S.D. N.Y. June 11, 2009):<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, there is a question of material fact as to whether the manner and location of the strip search was reasonable, the remaining two prongs of the Bell test. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Moore, the non-moving party, this Court cannot find for the Defendant as a matter of law because reasonable jurors could find that the officers acted unreasonably by conducting the search in an overly intrusive manner and in an improper location when they requested Moore to pull down his pants, spread his buttocks, and jump in a public area where observers and pedestrians could see his exposed lower body. While pulling back someone’s pants to inspect the inside of their pants in public has been found reasonable, People v. Jones, 3 Misc. 3d 481, 485-86, 776 N.Y.S.2d 750 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx County 2004), a partial strip search in a public place where passersby can see a person’s naked body is not reasonable absent serious safety concerns. See Jean-Laurent v. Hennessy, No. 05-CV-1155, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59478, 2008 WL 3049875, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008); People v. Mitchell, 2 A.D.3d 145, 148, 768 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Given that there was no apparent safety concern arising from Moore’s arrest, the issue of whether Moore was actually exposed to the public during the search incident to his arrest is a material question of fact, precluding summary judgment for the Defendant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Court buys trained drug officer’s testimony that he could smell bud marijuana that a drug dog could not, considering all the factors, and that gave probable cause. United States v. Carrizal, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49730 (W.D. Tex. January 20, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Collateral estoppel applied against the city to a civil forfeiture where the evidence was suppressed in the criminal case because of an illegal search. City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn. App. 360, 208 P.3d 574 (2009).<\/p>\n
Court credits officer’s testimony that defendant consented to a search, including opening bundles of money. No motion to suppress was filed, but the exclusionary rule applies in forfeiture cases. United States v. $321,590.00 in United States Currency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49896 (D. Neb. June 15, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading