The fact expert Fourth Amendment counsel would have charged the client $1,000-1,800 before SCOTUS isn\u2019t binding on the district court for fee shifting. The local rate is what\u2019s reasonable. Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233088 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officers did not show entitlement to summary judgment in an excessive force shooting case involving a person on an ATV. This is a jury question. Mejia v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233259 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 15, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer here had reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking through FedEx packages. He separated one and set up a lineup for a dog sniff, and the dog alerted. \u201cDespite these arguments, the Court’s concern is with reasonable suspicion at the time of the investigation, not what information later comes to light.\u201d That California is a \u201csource state\u201d is an indicator for reasonable suspicion, albeit a mild one. United States v. Sherrell, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232453 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 6, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact expert Fourth Amendment counsel would have charged the client $1,000-1,800 before SCOTUS isn\u2019t binding on the district court for fee shifting. The local rate is what\u2019s reasonable. Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233088 … Continue reading