Daily Archives: March 2, 2022

LATimes: New limits on ‘pretextual stops’ by LAPD officers approved, riling police union

LATimes: New limits on ‘pretextual stops’ by LAPD officers approved, riling police union by Kevin Rector:

Posted in Pretext | Comments Off on LATimes: New limits on ‘pretextual stops’ by LAPD officers approved, riling police union

NY Nassau: 14 days pole camera surveillance of def’s residence not unreasonable under 4A or state constitution

Pole camera surveillance of a homeless shelter for 14 days observing defendant coming and going was not an unreasonable search under the state or federal constitution, even if it was his home. People v. Destefano, 2022 NY Slip Op 22052, … Continue reading

Posted in E-mail, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on NY Nassau: 14 days pole camera surveillance of def’s residence not unreasonable under 4A or state constitution

CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

“Where ‘a plaintiff claims that excessive force was used multiple times, “the court must segment the incident into its constituent parts and consider the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at each step along the way.”’ Wright, 962 F.3d at 865 … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

CA4: Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Posse Comitatus Act

An investigation by the DoD Inspector General is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Besides, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is not subject to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Vaxima, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 5315 … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Exclusionary rule, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA4: Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Posse Comitatus Act

W.D.Mich.: With no evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence def consented to search of his person, the govt met its burden of proof on consent

“In this case, Defendant expressly indicated that he does not dispute the validity of his consent, but solely the scope of that consent. Detective Fox testified that he asked for Defendant’s general consent to search his person and that Defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Voluntariness | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: With no evidence to rebut the prosecution evidence def consented to search of his person, the govt met its burden of proof on consent