Tractor trailers in Michigan are subject to regulated industries exception

Under Michigan law, the trucking industry is a highly regulated industry under Burger. After stopping the driver and finding violations of operating regulations, the officer could justifiably enter the trailer to compare the bill of lading to the load and the route being traveled. The load here was not professionally loaded, and boxes were askew, and that justified looking in them. United States v. Soto, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (W.D. Mich. 2007).

Officers were subject to qualified immunity for seizure of documents during search warrant over a battery because of reason to believe evidence would be found there. [And that’s a stretch; documents in a battery case? How?] Kicklighter v. Herrin, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55308 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2007):

In the instant case, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the Sheriff’s Department files were subject to lawful seizure. Kicklighter was storing the files at his residence even though he had been suspended from the Sheriff’s Department. Therefore, regardless of whether the officers were actually entitled to seize these files, the Court finds that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably believed that the files were the property of the Sheriff’s Department and therefore subject to lawful seizure.

Convicted plaintiff could not bring himself within Heck‘s limited exception for inevitable discovery or independent source. Clayton v. City of Poughkeepsie, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55082 (S.D. N.Y. June 21, 2007)*:

The doctrines of independent source, inevitable discovery, and harmless error discussed in Heck are not applicable, where, as here, the entire evidentiary basis for the charged offense derives from a single episode involving a single search that is now being questioned as part of a § 1983 action. Indeed, it was so patently obvious to Plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney that the entire case turned on his motion to suppress evidence from the search at issue that he referred to that motion as “dispositive,” and his client (the Plaintiff) pled guilty just weeks after that motion was denied. Without the search and seizure at issue, there would undoubtedly not have been any criminal charge filed against Plaintiff for possession of these narcotics. Accordingly, given that the exception described in Heck is not applicable here, Plaintiff’s purported § 1983 claims based on the allegedly unreasonable search and seizure described above are hereby dismissed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.