{"id":5189,"date":"2011-07-10T16:58:06","date_gmt":"2011-02-14T08:08:03","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-02-14T08:08:03","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5189","title":{"rendered":"GA: Officers on premises with a SW could photograph what they see in plain view"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers on the premises with a search warrant could photograph what was then in plain view, despite the argument that it was outside the search warrant. In the Interest of R. C. H.<\/a>, 307 Ga. App. 774 (February 9, 2011).<\/p>\n

A drug transaction outside the house, and then the defendant returning to the house is nexus to the house for drugs. United States v. Ellison<\/a>, 632 F.3d 347, 2011 FED App. 0050P (6th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s car was subjected to a drug dog sniff by a tribal police officer working on a casino parking lot, and drugs were found. He was convicted. His suit against the tribal police department was framed in such a way it was barred by Heck<\/a>. Johnson v. Pottawotomie Tribal Police Dep’t<\/a>, 411 Fed. Appx. 19 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

After careful consideration, we find all of Johnson’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey<\/a>, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because each necessarily implies the invalidity of Johnson’s sentence.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Underlying all of Johnson’s claims is the allegation that he was subject to an illegal arrest and search without probable cause because Hurla was not qualified to be a law enforcement officer under Kansas state law. Johnson argues that, since Hurla’s law enforcement certificate was retroactively revoked, \u201cany actions he undertook [as a K-9 officer] were not only illegal, but were also unconstitutional.\u201d Aplt’s Br. at 4. Johnson’s argument, assuming it were true, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence because it would have been based upon evidence gathered during an illegal arrest and thus would have to be suppressed. See United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256, 1260 (10th Cir. 2008). Johnson\u2019s claim is precisely the type that Heck<\/a> mandates should be pursued through a petition for habeas corpus and not a \u00a7 1983 complaint.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Note: Habeas search claims, of course, are barred by Stone v. Powell. Is this a Catch-22?]<\/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-5189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5189","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=5189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}