Flight from ATM machine was reasonable suspicion when officer pulled up

Officers had a 911 call about suspicious characters at an ATM machine, and one rolled up, they saw the officers and “fled” from the scene. While flight alone would not be enough, the actions here, analyzed in [painful] detail, added up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Pasca, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30832 (W.D. Pa. April 14, 2008).*

Controlled buy from a corroborated CI is probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. United States v. Sampson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30742 (M.D. Pa. March 31, 2008).*

Plaintiff’s conviction for assaulting a police officer barred this civil claim for excessive force under Heck because, as pled, the complaint attacked the basis of conviction. The question is what was pled, not could have been pled. Beverly v. Talsma, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30290 (S.D. Ind. March 28, 2008):

This is not a case like McCann, in which the complaint was ambiguous as to whether the plaintiff was necessarily challenging the validity of his conviction. See McCann, 466 F.3d at 622-23 (reversing judgment on the pleadings based on Heck and remanding to give plaintiff an opportunity to clarify ambiguity and steer his complaint to middle ground not barred by Heck). Throughout this civil case–from the pleadings through the presentation of evidence motions for summary judgment–plaintiff Beverly has adhered steadfastly to his version of the facts in which he committed no crime at all, neither battery nor resisting law enforcement nor anything else. Based on the reasoning of Okoro, therefore, the court must conclude that Beverly’s claim for excessive force is barred by Heck unless and until his convictions are set aside. Accord, McCann, 466 F.3d at 622 (“The question for us, then, is not whether [plaintiff] could have drafted a complaint that steers clear of Heck (he could have), but whether he did.”).

“In the Ninth Circuit, ‘an action alleging illegal search and seizure of evidence upon which criminal charges are based does not accrue until the criminal charges have been dismissed or the conviction has been overturned.’ Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000).” Fjerstad v. Bach, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30654 (W.D. Wash. March 17, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.