\u201cIn light of totality of the circumstances of this case, we thus ask whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant Josephs’ repeated refusal of Plaintiff’s requests to use his own restroom rendered Plaintiff’s seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Though we are not limited to the Graham factors we use typically to evaluate a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, discussion of those factors is instructive. Based on the following, we find that Plaintiff has plausibly plead a \u00a7 1983 Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim.\u201d Antol v. English, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24454 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Delaware\u2019s search and seizure provision follows Pennsylvania\u2019s, not the Fourth Amendment. Calm v. Taylor, 2026 Del. Ch. LEXIS 343 (Aug. 11, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant’s attempt to characterize the encounter as a roadside strip search is not supported by the record. All three officers testified that Defendant’s genitalia and buttocks remained clothed.\u201d United States v. Nelson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180844 (D. Me. Aug. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn light of totality of the circumstances of this case, we thus ask whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant Josephs’ repeated refusal of Plaintiff’s requests to use his own restroom rendered Plaintiff’s seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Though … Continue reading