Daily Archives: January 22, 2022

N.D.Ill.: Losing search issue in state court collaterally estops civil § 1983 case over same search

Collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s suit against officers who arrested and searched him. He lost on the same search issue in state court, and that’s order is final. Bertaux v. Aurora Police Dep’t, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11260 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 21, … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Social media warrants | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Losing search issue in state court collaterally estops civil § 1983 case over same search

CA9: Supervised release condition of cell phone searches was reasonable

“Koyanagi next challenges the special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit to periodic suspicionless searches of his electronic data. [¶] Koyanagi’s constitutional challenges to this condition are unavailing. See United States v. Bare, 806 F.3d 1011, 1018 n.4 … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA9: Supervised release condition of cell phone searches was reasonable

OH2: Police car blocking def’s car in a parking lot was a seizure without RS

“We conclude that a police officer’s act of positioning the cruiser in a way that made it difficult, albeit not impossible, for Jones to drive away constituted a show of authority sufficient to cause a reasonable person in Jones’ position … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on OH2: Police car blocking def’s car in a parking lot was a seizure without RS

D.Nev.: Private prison’s recording of attorney-client calls states a claim

A criminal defense lawyer stated a claim against a private prison operator under the wiretapping laws for recording attorney-client calls. Bliss v. Corecivic, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10953 (D.Nev. Jan. 18, 2022). 2254 petitioner’s illegal search claim barred by Stone. … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Prison and jail searches, Private search | Comments Off on D.Nev.: Private prison’s recording of attorney-client calls states a claim