A school security officer gets qualified immunity for a patdown search of 21 students in a class for allegedly stolen money because there was reasonable suspicion as to all 21. Woods v. Rio Rancho Pub. Schs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8236 (D. N.M. Jan. 17, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Defendant claimed in his Rule 60(b) effort to supplement a 2255 petition, that there was fraud on the court in obtaining the search warrant in his case: \u201cAdditionally, Black cannot make the requisite showing as to his Rule 60(b) motion. In his motion, Black merely made a conclusory allegation of fraud committed by the government without providing any evidence, and he did not allege how the government’s alleged fraudulent conduct prevented him from fully presenting his case. Waddell v. Hendry Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of Black’s Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, Black’s motion for a COA is DENIED.\u201d Black v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1502 (11th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A school security officer gets qualified immunity for a patdown search of 21 students in a class for allegedly stolen money because there was reasonable suspicion as to all 21. Woods v. Rio Rancho Pub. Schs, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading