Honda leased a car that was impounded and towed from the driver because it was unlicensed. Eleven months later Honda located the car and there were thousands of accumulated fees. Honda sued under \u00a7 1983. The initial seizure was valid under the community caretaking function. \u201cHonda’s argument that the impounding became unconstitutional when the Township allegedly gave Malanga a \u2018possessory lien\u2019 in the car and attached \u2018conditions\u2019 on the car’s release is an unpersuasive framing of what really happened here. Under the community caretaker exception, the police officers conducted a traffic stop and directed Malanga to remove an unregistered, uninsured vehicle from the road pursuant to their duties to protect public safety under New Jersey law. Such a practice does not violate the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.\u201d It also was not a deprivation of property without due process of law nor a taking without just compensation. Honda Lease Tr. v. Butler Twp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114230 (D.N.J. June 28, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim was waived by his guilty plea. United States v. Hamm, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114342 (E.D. Ky. June 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An unverified computer database alert on defendant\u2019s car plus its travel route was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Witt, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114572 (D. Ariz. June 12, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113283 (D. Ariz. June 28, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Honda leased a car that was impounded and towed from the driver because it was unlicensed. Eleven months later Honda located the car and there were thousands of accumulated fees. Honda sued under \u00a7 1983. The initial seizure was valid … Continue reading