Suit against “To Catch a Predator” can proceed

A Texas ADA shot himself in the head as a SWAT team surrounded his house for the benefit of “To Catch a Predator” to avoid the humiliation of arrest. Many of the Estate’s claims fail, but the case will proceed on a claim that the police acted unreasonably under the Fourth Amendment and precipitated the suicide. Conradt v. NBC Universal, 536 F. Supp. 2d 380 (S.D. N.Y. 2008):

Although many of plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed, the principal claims survive, for if the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, a reasonable jury could find that NBC crossed the line from responsible journalism to irresponsible and reckless intrusion into law enforcement. Rather than merely report on law enforcement’s efforts to combat crime, NBC purportedly instigated and then placed itself squarely in the middle of a police operation, pushing the police to engage in tactics that were unnecessary and unwise, solely to generate more dramatic footage for a television show. On the facts alleged in the amended complaint, for example, a reasonable jury could find that there was no legitimate law enforcement need for a heavily armed SWAT team to extract a 56-year old prosecutor from his home when he was not accused of any actual violence and was not believed to have a gun, and that this was done solely “to sensationalize and enhance the entertainment value” of the arrest. A reasonable jury could find that by doing so, NBC created a substantial risk of suicide or other harm, and that it engaged in conduct so outrageous and extreme that no civilized society should tolerate it.

Trash seizure that was premised on an unconstitutional statement was suppressed. Vergara v. State, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 202 (February 25, 2008).*

Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain appellant who was with a wanted person and in a high crime area. State v. Carlisle, 2008 Ohio 744, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 640 (4th Dist. February 19, 2008):

[*P13] In the case at bar, considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the police officers were justified in making an investigative stop. The encounter with Appellant occurred in a high crime area, known as a center of drug trafficking. Appellant was in the company of Tyrone Black, who was wanted for drug activity from the previous night and for whom the police were actively searching. Further, the officers knew of Appellant’s criminal history, including his involvement in illegal drugs. Additionally, and most obviously, the stop was justified because Appellant was carrying an open container of alcohol.