Category Archives: § 1983 / Bivens

IN: CI’s statement he bought from def ten times was a statement against penal interest

The CI was the target of a search, and he snitched off defendant as his source for about ten sales, the most recent the day before. That was a statement against penal interest. State v. Stone, 2020 Ind. App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN: CI’s statement he bought from def ten times was a statement against penal interest

CA8: TSA’s officers “satisfy the FTCA’s definition of an investigative or law enforcement officer” for FTCA

“The central question here is whether Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screening personnel, known as Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), satisfy the FTCA’s definition of an investigative or law enforcement officer. Holding that they do, we reverse and remand.” “Two of our … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: TSA’s officers “satisfy the FTCA’s definition of an investigative or law enforcement officer” for FTCA

CA6: Pleading false information used to get SW overcame QI at this stage

Pleading that defendants used false information to get a search warrant for them. That was enough to get around qualified immunity, and the district court erred in dismissing at this stage. Marvaso v. Sanchez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26723 (6th … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA6: Pleading false information used to get SW overcame QI at this stage

CA6: Seizure under a SW is not a 5A taking

The consensus of several other circuits is that seizing property under a search warrant is not subject to the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. See, e.g., Lech v. Jackson, 791 Fed. Appx. 711, 717 (10th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 19-1123, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Seizure | Comments Off on CA6: Seizure under a SW is not a 5A taking

CA7: Violation of police dept regulations can’t reasonably be a § 1983 claim or 4A violation

Violation of department violations can’t reasonably be a § 1983 claim or violation of the Fourth Amendment. Estate of Biegert v. Molitor, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 24211 (7th Cir. July 31, 2020):

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA7: Violation of police dept regulations can’t reasonably be a § 1983 claim or 4A violation

CA9: Nevada JP’s PC determination never finalized has no preclusive effect in § 1983 case

A preliminary determination of probable cause by a justice of the peace that is not appealed is not entitled to preclusive effect under state law. Therefore, plaintiff states a claim for relief for his alleged false arrest despite that. Scafidi … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on CA9: Nevada JP’s PC determination never finalized has no preclusive effect in § 1983 case

CA9: 4A issues in “travel ban” case: expungement of records unconstitutionally obtained is a remedy

“Addressing plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment search claims, the panel first held that the expungement relief sought by plaintiffs — the expungement of all records unconstitutionally obtained and maintained — was available under the Constitution to remedy the alleged constitutional violations. Because … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA9: 4A issues in “travel ban” case: expungement of records unconstitutionally obtained is a remedy

CA8: Mistake of name in SW affidavit deleted by district court wasn’t material

The affidavit for search warrant here originally used the name “Aaren” but the officer found “Taylor” could be the last name, and the affidavit was changed for that. It turned out that there were two people. The district court properly … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA8: Mistake of name in SW affidavit deleted by district court wasn’t material

NYT: A Timely Case on Police Violence at the Supreme Court

NYT: A Timely Case on Police Violence at the Supreme Court (“The justices will hear arguments in October over whether excessive force claims against the police are barred when the people they shoot get away.”)

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force | Comments Off on NYT: A Timely Case on Police Violence at the Supreme Court

CA6: No Bivens remedy for seizure of BoP prisoner’s property

A Bivens remedy should not exist for actions against prisons for seizure of an inmate’s artwork that allegedly violated prison regulations. Courts don’t want to get into monitoring prisons. Callahan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22115 … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Waiver | Comments Off on CA6: No Bivens remedy for seizure of BoP prisoner’s property

E.D.Mich.: Habeas petitioner not arguing defense counsel was told by him that consent was involuntary doesn’t show ineffectiveness for not raising it

2255 petitioner’s failure to argue he told defense counsel that his consent to search was involuntary was fatal to his claim defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing it. United States v. Mitchell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123319 (E.D. Mich. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Ineffective assistance, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Habeas petitioner not arguing defense counsel was told by him that consent was involuntary doesn’t show ineffectiveness for not raising it

CA4: That Bivens shouldn’t recognize this claim wasn’t raised below and it’s waived

“Here, the officers argue that their case – notwithstanding its similarities to Bivens, which likewise involved a Fourth Amendment claim against federal law enforcement officers – presents a ‘new Bivens context,’ and that allowing it to proceed runs afoul of … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probation / Parole search, Waiver | Comments Off on CA4: That Bivens shouldn’t recognize this claim wasn’t raised below and it’s waived

CA7: Factual mistake in state court opinion doesn’t justify habeas relief

A factual mistake in a state court’s decision on defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim for the inventory of his property still doesn’t merit habeas relief. Marling v. Littlejohn, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21616 (7th Cir. July 13, 2020). Plaintiff’s claim for … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Inventory, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA7: Factual mistake in state court opinion doesn’t justify habeas relief

CA6: Filing a case report with the DA doesn’t make a malicious prosecution action

“Cases after Skousen have continued to apply its holding that filing a case report, taken alone, is insufficient to support a malicious-prosecution claim. See Miller v. Davis, 653 F. App’x 448, 455-56 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that a detective’s report … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA6: Filing a case report with the DA doesn’t make a malicious prosecution action

NM: Stop for mere curiosity to run name was unreasonable stop under Strieff

Stopping defendant for mere curiosity to get his name and then run warrants was an unreasonable stop. When a warrant came up, it wasn’t attenuated under Strieff. “Here, Officer Hernandez testified that it was his practice when working the night … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Attenuation, Probable cause, Seizure | Comments Off on NM: Stop for mere curiosity to run name was unreasonable stop under Strieff

CA5: Expert opinion on reasonableness in 1983 case improper

“We first find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of testimony from two of Albert’s expert witnesses—Richard Lichten, a police-procedure expert, and Dr. Kris Sperry, the former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Admissibility of evidence | Comments Off on CA5: Expert opinion on reasonableness in 1983 case improper

CA11: Ptf gets discovery on QI before SJ can be granted

“We hold that the district court abused its discretion by denying the Plaintiff any opportunity to conduct discovery in this case before being made to respond to McFarlane’s motion for summary judgment” on qualified immunity. Defendants are not entitled to … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA11: Ptf gets discovery on QI before SJ can be granted

CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

Plaintiff was arrested for child pornography when officers executed a search warrant at his house based on a video uploaded via the IP address and router in the house. There was probable cause for the arrest, but not for the … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Computer and cloud searches, Overseizure | Comments Off on CA6: Ptf stated claim for unreasonable continued detention after state’s case collapsed when forensic search of computer came up negative

CA9: Protective sweep of house after medical emergency at front door unjustified

Officers responded to a medical emergency at the entryway of defendant’s house. They ended up conducting a protective sweep for which there was no justification whatsoever. The firearm found in the protective sweep is suppressed. United States v. Gonzalez-Martin, 2020 … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: Protective sweep of house after medical emergency at front door unjustified

CA8: Extraditee stated Bell v. Wolfish due process claim from injury and degradation from 8 day transportation that should have taken about 17 hours

Plaintiff was an extraditee transported from Colorado to Mississippi, a 17 hour trip, that took eight days and resulted in real injury and degradation from lack of stops and rest. Plaintiff sued in the Eastern District of California, but it … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens | Comments Off on CA8: Extraditee stated Bell v. Wolfish due process claim from injury and degradation from 8 day transportation that should have taken about 17 hours