{"id":3622,"date":"2010-03-23T08:54:16","date_gmt":"2009-12-12T08:44:38","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-12T08:44:38","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3622","title":{"rendered":"CA9: Mayfield lacks standing to sue for declaratory judgment, having settled other claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brandon Mayfield, who settled his false arrest case against the government for $2M, did not have Art. III standing to challenge the FISA provisions of the PATRIOT Act after he settled. The existence of a past injury did not show that he was going to be searched again. Mayfield v. United States<\/a>, 588 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2009), lower court opinion Mayfield v. United States, 504 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007):<\/p>\n

Mayfield unquestionably had standing to seek damages and injunctive relief when he filed the original complaint. The requirements for seeking such relief, however, differ from the requirements for seeking a declaratory judgment. See Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111. Having bargained away all other forms of relief, Mayfield is now entitled only to a declaratory judgment. Although it is undisputed that the government retains materials derived from the FISA searches and surveillance of Mayfield’s property, the only relief that would redress this alleged Fourth Amendment violation is an injunction requiring the government to return or destroy such materials. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Mayfield cannot seek injunctive relief. 7 Nor is it likely that the government will return the materials of its own volition, as it is under no legal obligation to do so, and has stated in its brief that it does not intend to take such action. Finally, the district court did not– in conjunction with its opinion sua sponte order the government to return or destroy the derivative materials, but merely stated that “it is reasonable to assume that the Executive branch of the government will act lawfully and make all reasonable efforts to destroy the derivative materials when a final declaration of the unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions is issued.” Mayfield, 504 F. Supp. 2d at 1034.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See article in Pogo Was Right: Ninth Circuit rejects Patriot Act challenge for lack of standing<\/a>.<\/p>\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-3622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3622","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=3622"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3622\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}