Strip search by school officials for a stolen iPod was a probable Fourth Amendment violation, so summary judgment denied. Qualified immunity also does not apply because case law had already developed that a strip search for non-contraband was likely unreasonable. Foster v. Raspberry, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65419 (M.D. Ga. July 29, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Disagreement by a potential witness over electrical usage that formed a part of the PC that contradicted records was not sufficient to warrant a Franks<\/a> hearing. United States v. Spears, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64945 (N.D. Ind. July 28, 2009).*<\/p>\n Under Muehler v. Mena<\/a>, officers may constitutionally detain the occupants of a home during a parole or probation compliance search. Sanchez v. Canales<\/a>, 574 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n Stop was valid, and brief questions about immigration status were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Ochoa-Mata, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65090 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2009):<\/p>\n Agent Ortiz’ questions of Defendant regarding citizenship and whether he had documentation authorizing him to be or remain in the United States was valid. “The police may ask people, who have legitimately been stopped, for identification without conducting a Fourth Amendment search and seizure.” United States v. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 634, 169 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2007); see INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 104 S. Ct. 1758, 80 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1984)(“[I]nterrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”). The questioning of Defendant, Co-Defendant and the two female passengers took no more than three minutes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading