“[T]he Fourth Amendment applies to child welfare workers. Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 510 (7th Cir. 2003).” The complaint here stated a claim to at least survive a 12(b)(6) motion that plaintiff school child was subjected to a seizure at her school by child welfare workers interviewing her. Loftus v. Clark-Moore, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57266 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant, a mere bailee of marijuana in boxes, lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of the boxes. “[D]efendant affirmatively denied owning the boxes and did not claim that he had any other possessory interest as a bailee or otherwise.” United States v. Robles, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57462 (D. Kan. July 7, 2009).*<\/p>\n
“[D]efendant’s consent to a search of the house extended to any locked rooms in the house.” United States v. Hicks, 631 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. N.C. 2009).*<\/p>\n
Gant<\/a> did not alter the plain view doctrine, and defendant’s search was justified by plain view. United States v. Franklin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57131 (N.D. Ind. July 6, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading