CA3: A threat to violate the 4A is not a 4A violation; it is contingent for Art. III

“The Probation Department employees’ alleged threat to send Repotski back to jail does not state a constitutional violation cognizable under § 1983. See McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1983) (noting that mere threats do not amount to constitutional violations). Furthermore, to the extent that Yoder alleged that the Probation Department employees violated her Fourth Amendment rights, her claim is not ripe, as there has been no search of a place in which Yoder has a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (stating that a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests on some contingent future event).” Yoder v. District Attorney of Montgomery County, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29909 (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2019).

Plaintiff’s decedent was shot by an officer during a buy-bust operation when he didn’t move his hands to plain sight fast enough. The court finds enough fact disputes that the officer does not get qualified immunity. Brown v. Nocco, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29572 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2019).*