{"id":3322,"date":"2010-03-24T07:09:47","date_gmt":"2009-08-16T07:39:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-08-16T07:39:18","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3322","title":{"rendered":"CA2: Plaintiffs’ verdict for excessive Terry<\/em> stop affirmed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant sought immunity so she could testify that consent was coerced, which was denied, so she did not testify on the advice of counsel. The consent was valid based on the only testimony in the record. United States v. Plummer<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18008 (3d Cir. August 13, 2009) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

The problem for Plummer is that Smith, on the advice of her counsel, would not testify at the suppression hearing without immunity from prosecution. The District Court denied that request after concluding that the extraordinary relief of immunity was not needed for Smith to testify on the limited issue of whether she consented to the search of her apartment for Plummer. Thus the only testimony before the Court at the suppression hearing was that of two police officers to the effect that Smith consented to the search.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Consent was valid on this record, and the district court did consider the defendant’s testimony. United States v. Noe<\/a>, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (3d Cir. August 13, 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n

The special findings of the jury on an excessive Terry stop and search are supported by the evidence and violate clearly established law. Carter v. City of Yonkers<\/a>, 345 Fed. Appx. 605 (2d Cir. 2009) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

On the special verdict form, the jury indicated its findings that Appellants searched Plaintiffs’ car or persons or photographed their faces without consent, and that they “conducted an unreasonable search or seizure by searching [Plaintiffs’] cell phone[s], searching [their] person[s] beyond a pat-down, or by taking photograph[s] of their bod[ies].” We have little difficulty concluding that these findings establish a Fourth Amendment violation. The extensive search of Appellees, their vehicle, and\/or their cell phones, along with the photographing–whether alone or in combination–went well beyond what was permissible under a Terry stop. <\/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-3322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3322","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=3322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}