{"id":915,"date":"2007-08-27T20:39:34","date_gmt":"2007-04-12T07:34:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-04-12T07:34:08","slug":"hu-HU","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=915","title":{"rendered":"SDI Future Health search warrant suppression upheld by District Judge"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The District Judge in the <a href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/blog\/index.php?blog=1&amp;title=failure_to_timely_assert_attorney_client&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1\">SDI Future Health case <\/a>upheld the Magistrate Judge&#8217;s suppression of the search under a warrant.  The individual major stockholders had standing to contest the search, the warrant failed particularity in several areas, and the good faith exception did not apply to those failures. United States v. SDI Future Health, Inc., 491 F. Supp. 2d 975 (D. Nev. 2007).  (Note: Defense counsel provided me the order by e-mail a few days ago, but the District Court&#8217;s order did not make Lexis until today.)<\/p>\n<p>Defendants were validly stopped for a traffic offense, but the government failed in its burden of showing the detention was reasonable. Objective evidence of radio logs showed that the defendants were not shown to have warrants for their arrest for over an hour, and an hour&#8217;s detention was unjustified by the purpose of the original stop. United States v. Marks, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26226 (W.D. Tex. March 28, 2007).*<\/p>\n<p>If the plaintiff was not convicted of a crime, <em>Heck<\/em> does not bar the action. McClish v. Nugent, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8294 (11th Cir. April 11, 2007).*<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiff&#8217;s pro se complaint against housing inspectors who had probable cause to enter was dismissed on summary judgment. Marcello v. Maine, 489 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D. Maine 2007).*<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiff stated enough to stay in court on arrest without probable cause and lack of qualified immunity. The defendants offered alternate theories of cause for arrest that were never raised in the ancillary state court proceeding.  Sykes v. Wicomico County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26197 (D. Md. March 30, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=915\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}