Multiple outstanding traffic tickets supported a parole search

There is no expectation of privacy in the common area of a Parolee’s house; chronic driving without a license was justification for a parole search. Once inside, the parole officer found evidence of counterfeiting. “We also find as a matter of law, having considered the totality of the circumstances, that the agents had a ‘particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing,’ Williams, 417 F.3d at 376, such that the search of the premises was supported by reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Noble, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54168 (W.D. Pa. July 26, 2007). Comment: This is about the lowest threshold for a parole search.

Duplex had doors, but they were unlocked and open and there was only an unlocked screen door. There is a “fact-dependent nature of the inquiry into the reasonableness of an individual’s expectation of privacy in a particular place.” United States v. Villegas, 495 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2007).

Unarmed plaintiff who alleged he did not hear knock and announce and heard the explosion of a “flash bang” device and was shot running out of the back of the house survived summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. Martin v. City of S. Lake Tahoe, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54220 (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2007)*:

Under plaintiff’s version of the facts, he was shot while he ran out of a house because of what he thought was a gas leak explosion. Plaintiff was unarmed and was not advised to freeze or stop by defendant Williams. Plaintiff’s version of the facts implicitly asserts that plaintiff did not see the officers and that he did not look at defendant Reagan or raise his arm in a threatening manner. At that time, defendant Williams did not have knowledge that plaintiff had committed or was committing a crime.

A knock-and-announce civil case was dismissed on summary judgment on the merits of the officers’ claim of exigent circumstances [And Hudson could not be applied. This case was doomed on the merits.] Molette v. City of Alexandria, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53896 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2007):

[After discussing Wilson and Richards:] With these principles in mind, it is clear that the SRT’s unannounced entry into the Wise Street houses was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. At the time of the attempted entry, the SRT reasonably believed that knocking and announcing their presence would be dangerous. As mentioned, Mr. Molette was: suspected in the attempted murder of Officer Fuller; wanted on a valid arrest warrant for violating the terms of his probation; reportedly seen at the Wise Street locations; and believed to be armed with an AK-47 and two pistols. Under these circumstances and in light of the law enforcement’s actions as a whole, we find that the SRT’s unannounced entry into the Wise Street houses did not violate Mr. Molette’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unreasonable search and seizure claims under the Fourth Amendment will be dismissed with prejudice.