Category Archives: § 1983 / Bivens

N.D.Cal.: Recognizes $800 per hour for 10-year lawyer in civil rights case

In a discovery fee sanctions case in a First Amendment case, the USMJ notes that $395-450 per hour was reasonable, noting that seven months ago the court approved $800 in a First and Fourth Amendment case. Goldberg v. Teachbk, Inc., … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Recognizes $800 per hour for 10-year lawyer in civil rights case

W.D.Wis.: Pro se ptf gets jury trial verdict for $550,000 for illegal search and malicious prosecution

Pro se plaintiff gets jury trial verdict for $550,000 for illegal search and malicious prosecution thereafter. The jury was free to conclude that the basis for the search was invented. Coleman v. Sperry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527 (W.D. Wis. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading | Comments Off on W.D.Wis.: Pro se ptf gets jury trial verdict for $550,000 for illegal search and malicious prosecution

D.Kan.: Ptf’s § 1983 case stayed where filed while underlying criminal case was ongoing

Plaintiff sued while his criminal trespass case was pending in state municipal court. The action is stayed because plaintiff can raise his constitutional claims there. Younger also counsels that. Spiehs v. Allen, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35038 (D. Kan. Feb. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Issue preclusion, Seizure | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Ptf’s § 1983 case stayed where filed while underlying criminal case was ongoing

E.D.Pa.: Warrant not required to be shown at time of arrest

The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant be provided at the time of arrest, and an arrest can occur with probable cause and without a warrant in felony cases. Mister v. Marino, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33508 (E.D. Pa. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Warrant not required to be shown at time of arrest

C.D.Cal.: Suit over seizure of guns on mental health order dismissed

Officers had a court order under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 8100 for taking plaintiff’s guns because of a mental health hold. They came to his house but he was gone. They talked to him through his Ring doorbell. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Computer and cloud searches | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Suit over seizure of guns on mental health order dismissed

D.N.M.: Automobile exception search fails for lack of PC

The search of defendant’s car was unreasonable under the automobile exception because there was no probable cause to believe drugs or other evidence would be found there. Also, the inventory was invalid. United States v. Lujan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Automobile exception, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Automobile exception search fails for lack of PC

D.Colo.: Prospective relief against judge-authorized administrative warrants denied

Plaintiff was the subject of an administrative warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. The request for prospective relief is denied, and the complaint is dismissed. Waldrop v. Colo. Dep’t of Agric., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27532 (D. Colo. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Administrative search, Issue preclusion, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Prospective relief against judge-authorized administrative warrants denied

NC: Temporary immobility of a car doesn’t prevent the automobile exception from applying

Temporary immobility of a car doesn’t prevent the automobile exception from applying. (This is after a remand for a probable cause finding. The court also discusses the good faith exception and the court must guard against the exception swallowing the … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Automobile exception, Dog sniff, Probable cause | Comments Off on NC: Temporary immobility of a car doesn’t prevent the automobile exception from applying

D.Md.: Premature filing of FTCA case over a search denies jurisdiction

Because plaintiff filed his FTCA case before the six-month window was up, the court lacks jurisdiction over it. There is also a Bivens claim for execution of a search warrant which the court finds different than Bivens. Wood v. United … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Excessive force, Federal Tort Claims Act, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Md.: Premature filing of FTCA case over a search denies jurisdiction

N.D.Ind.: Alleged sexual assault during citizen ride along stated 4A claim

Alleged sexual assault during a citizen ride along in a police car stated a Fourth Amendment claim. Hess v. Garcia, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22018 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2026). “Based on our precedent involving the use of pepper spray, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Pretext, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Alleged sexual assault during citizen ride along stated 4A claim

KS: Geofence warrant valid under GFE

This geofence warrant was valid by the good faith exception. State v. Mitchell-Pennington, 2026 Kan. App. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 23, 2026). The omitted facts merely clarified, not defeated, probable cause. The motion to suppress was properly denied. Urrutia v. State, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell phones, Consent, Franks doctrine, geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on KS: Geofence warrant valid under GFE

CA4: Def’s pants transported from hospital to jail were searched, and inevitable discovery applies

Defendant’s pants were transported from the hospital to the jail, and inevitable discovery covers their search. United States v. Gibbins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1432 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2026). The warrant for five cell phones was executed within the … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Inevitable discovery, Prison and jail searches, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA4: Def’s pants transported from hospital to jail were searched, and inevitable discovery applies

ME: No REP in the shower area of a day homeless resource center

Defendant used a homeless resource center by day for taking showers. He was not an overnight guest and had no standing in the shower dressing area. State v. Zackaria, 2026 ME 2, 2026 Me. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 13, 2026). Officers … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Emergency / exigency, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Search, Standing | Comments Off on ME: No REP in the shower area of a day homeless resource center

E.D.Mich.: Defense can’t use SCA to get emails, even if they’re exculpatory

Only a governmental entity gets to use the Stored Communications Act to get emails. The defense can’t do it seeking even alleged exculpatory emails. Perry v. Silverthon, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 828 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 5, 2026). “Single-incident liability ‘is … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Overbreadth, Particularity, Stored Communications Act | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Defense can’t use SCA to get emails, even if they’re exculpatory

D.D.C.: 1/6 pardonee doesn’t state claim under FTCA for having to go to trial

Plaintiff has a 1/6 pardon. She sued over things the government did to obtain her conviction. She fails to state a claim under the FTCA for alleged disclosure of private information during the trial. “Although the FTCA waives the United … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Attenuation, Cell phones, Federal Tort Claims Act, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on D.D.C.: 1/6 pardonee doesn’t state claim under FTCA for having to go to trial

E.D.Ark.: There is no 4A claim by a dead person

There is no Fourth Amendment claim by a dead person. “Because the investigation failures and denial of access to the Courts are based on facts alleged to have occurred entirely after decedent’s death, Plaintiff cannot assert these claims either on … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: There is no 4A claim by a dead person

CA7: No property damage claim from executing SW

Relying on Johnson v. Manitowoc County, 635 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011), plaintiff’s claim for property damage from executing a search warrant is foreclosed. Hadley v. City of South Bend, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26040 (7th Cir. Oct. 7, 2025). … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Pretext, Private search, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA7: No property damage claim from executing SW

CO: In a civil case, legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense

“In a case of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove in a civil action under section 13-21-131, C.R.S. 2025. The … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CO: In a civil case, legal justification for a warrantless search is an affirmative defense

OH5: SW saved by GFE even if issuing court lacked jurisdiction

The good faith exception applies even if the Common Pleas court lacked jurisdiction to issue a warrant for a Dropbox account in another jurisdiction. State v. Wharton, 2025-Ohio-4485, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 3295 (5th Dist. Sep. 25, 2025). Summary judgment … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Emergency / exigency, Good faith exception, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on OH5: SW saved by GFE even if issuing court lacked jurisdiction

CA11: Officers reasonably concluded that this was one residence without apartments

“At the time the officers swore out and executed the warrant, the officers believed 4279 Violet Circle was a single-family home that Schmitz occupied.” The officers’ investigation for months never indicated that the premises included three efficiency apartments. “In sum, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Automobile exception, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness | Comments Off on CA11: Officers reasonably concluded that this was one residence without apartments