Officers aiding court ordered receiver in reasonable actions are immune

Police officers aiding a court ordered receiver in his actions toward plaintiff’s property acted reasonably and with qualified immunity. The court notes that the facts here are the “mirror image” of Soldal. Downeast Ventures v. Washington County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43461 (D. Me. June 13, 2007)*:

In any event, assuming that the facts of Soldal were actionable under the Fourth Amendment, those facts are the mirror-image of what is presented in the summary judgment record of this case. In Soldal the sheriff’s deputies prevented the plaintiff from interfering with the removal of his mobile home from a park even though they knew that the owner of the park had not complied with Illinois law and that no judgment of eviction had ever issued. Id. at 57. Here, the County Defendants knew that the Receiver was a court-appointed officer with the authority to demand possession of property held by third parties. Although the Receiver’s authority was not unlimited, it was nevertheless established by court order that he was empowered to demand possession of contested property. Because there is no evidence that the County Defendants knowingly participated in any abuse of the Receiver’s power and authority, the summary judgment record is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a finding that the County Defendants violated Downeast’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Search warrants and affidavits are discoverable under F. R. Crim. P. 16. United States v. Moss, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45231 (W.D. Tenn. June 13, 2005):

Courts have recognized that search warrants and affidavits are not exempted by Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. See United States v. Politi, 334 F. Supp. 1318, 1320 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) (noting that the Government agreed that search warrants and affidavits should be produced). As such, to the extent that Defendants seek the production of search warrants or affidavits related to United States Customs agents’ seizures of international shipments, the Court finds that the Government shall produce these documents per the Magistrate Judge’s May 5, 2005 Order.

Defendant was free to leave the airport until the officers directed him not to leave the taxi stand area. He was being followed, and that was not a seizure. “It does not matter whether the officers intended to allow Nielsen to leave the airport, so long as they did not communicate this intention to him. … Moreover, Nielsen asked at the taxi stand whether he was then being detained, indicating his understanding that he was not detained before that.” United States v. Nielsen, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14225 (9th Cir. June 12, 2007)* (unpublished).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.