A warrantless raid on a business alleged to have a First Amendment political retaliatory motive survives a motion to dismiss. \u201cTaking the Complaint’s allegations as true, we think that Hernandez’s organizing a raid of Bellas to suppress political speech\u2014\u2018actions reminiscent of a bygone era,\u2019\u2014qualifies as conduct \u2018so egregious that [Hernandez] did not need case law to know what he allegedly did was unlawful,\u2019 Bailey, 843 F.3d at 484 (cleaned up).\u201d “But even if that weren’t the case, binding caselaw from the Eleventh Circuit shows with ‘obvious clarity’ that this sort of retaliation is constitutionally prohibited.” Tundidor v. Hernandez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200922 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2024). [Really bad facts for the defendants, and so Florida.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer stopped plaintiff\u2019s car because it was looked quite similar to one he was told to watch out for because it was stolen. He didn\u2019t realize it wasn\u2019t the right car until after plaintiff resisted and a dog was deployed against plaintiff. The force used was not excessive. Benfer v. City of Baytown, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27907 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was an anonymous report of bad driving, and the officer observed some of it, and that justified the stop. Mack v. State, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 788 (Nov. 5, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s federal suit against a bankruptcy trustee was barred by the Barton doctrine. It had to be brought within the bankruptcy case. Juravin v. Fla. Bankr. Tr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28043 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A warrantless raid on a business alleged to have a First Amendment political retaliatory motive survives a motion to dismiss. \u201cTaking the Complaint’s allegations as true, we think that Hernandez’s organizing a raid of Bellas to suppress political speech\u2014\u2018actions reminiscent … Continue reading