Plaintiff claimed that the Department of Defense stole his intellectual property, and he filed suit alleging, inter alia, a Fourth Amendment claim, which was rejected because there was no search and seizure. \u201cBecause there are elaborate remedial systems already set up for wrongful appropriations of intellectual property, a Fourth Amendment constitutional remedy is not available for Plaintiffs’ claims.\u201d Pearlstein v. United States Dept. of Defense, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49235 (D. Ariz. April 9, 2012).<\/p>\n
Where the officers have probable cause to believe there are drugs in the car, defendant\u2019s arrest on a felony drug warrant justified a search of the car under the automobile exception, and Gant was inapplicable. United States v. Fox, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48966 (W.D. Mo. February 23, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading