\u201cIn 2018, the City of St. Louis passed Ordinance 70794, which created the Preserve and Rehabilitate Program.\u201d \u201cBroadly speaking, the Complaint highlights\u2014at a minimum\u2014gross mismanagement under the Preserve and Rehabilitate Program. But when focusing specifically on the purported conduct of each named Defendant, there is not enough to state a claim. [\u00b6] First, JAG4 fails to plead that its property was seized by Watson or anyone else. At no point does JAG4 assert that anyone took possession of its property or that Watson himself did anything to directly interfere with its property interests. Instead, JAG4 merely alleges that a notice was issued, it performed work on its own property, and the City never followed up even after the work was not completed.\u201d Therefore, no Fourth Amendment seizure. Jag4, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71862 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The requirement that a person sign in before speaking at a local body\u2019s meeting is not a violation of the First or Fourth Amendments. Sgaggio v. Carlos, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71704 (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court sides with the officer that the window tint was illegally too dark as the basis for the stop. The report didn\u2019t say \u201cillegal tint.\u201d United States v. Jackson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71696 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn 2018, the City of St. Louis passed Ordinance 70794, which created the Preserve and Rehabilitate Program.\u201d \u201cBroadly speaking, the Complaint highlights\u2014at a minimum\u2014gross mismanagement under the Preserve and Rehabilitate Program. But when focusing specifically on the purported conduct of … Continue reading