Exigency justified entry into defendant\u2019s apartment. The tenant below called 911 to report a shooting down through his ceiling and gunshots above. People v. Santiago, 2026 NY Slip Op 03398 (1st Dept. June 2, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMs. Sandoval next asserts that officers from the Nampa Police Department violated her Fourth Amendment rights by \u2018engag[ing] in detention and enforcement actions regarding asking questions in high risk and unsafe situations (during traffic stops etc.) about plaintiff’s at the time boyfriend.\u2019 Dkt. 20 \u00b6 17. She also states that this questioning put her \u2018at risk from gang member retaliation.\u2019 Id. None of these factual allegations, if true, rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation. Asking questions during an otherwise lawful traffic stop is not an unreasonable search or seizure, and the potential gang retaliation, while unsettling, appears completely irrelevant. Ms. Sandoval’s claim again consists of legal conclusions without the factual support required under Rule 8.\u201d No further leave to amend. This is the third try. Sandoval v. Idaho Dep’t of Health, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120609 (D. Idaho June 1, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Exigency justified entry into defendant\u2019s apartment. The tenant below called 911 to report a shooting down through his ceiling and gunshots above. People v. Santiago, 2026 NY Slip Op 03398 (1st Dept. June 2, 2026). \u201cMs. Sandoval next asserts that … Continue reading