\u201cNo viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant. See AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (\u2018so long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to some power other than eminent domain, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment\u2019) (citing Bennis, 516 U.S. at 453). Moreover, BPD’s alleged negligent destruction of the Property does not satisfy the \u2018taken for public use\u2019 element of a Takings Clause claim. \u2026\u201d Lemongas Enter., Inc. v. City of Bakersfield, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112389 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cNext, while we normally would address whether the State’s acquisition of Figueroa-Sanabria’s historical CSLI was a warrantless Fourth Amendment search, and if so, whether the exclusionary rule applies, we need not reach these issues to resolve this case. That is because the allegedly erroneous introduction of the CSLI evidence is harmless.\u201d Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 2023 Fla. LEXIS 978 (June 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s interaction with the police was consensual. United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16530 (5th Cir. June 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cNo viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant. See AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (\u2018so long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to … Continue reading