CA11: RS supported a protective sweep for def after a police foot chase and officers having reason to believe he could have doubled back to the hotel room from where he started

Defendant discovered he was under surveillance at his motel and he fled. Officers came back to his room in 10 minutes, and seeing his car entered his room thinking he had doubled back. He did not abandon his privacy interest in the room. Nonetheless, the entry and protective sweep of the motel room were valid because the officers reasonably believed that defendant was in the room because after chasing him for 10 minutes, they lost sight of him, they had not stayed behind to watch the motel, and his truck was still parked in the motel parking lot. It was thus eminently reasonable for the officers to conclude that defendant had doubled back to the motel and taken refuge in his motel room. United States v. Ross, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32363 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2019).

Second Circuit declines to find a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim in a traffic ticket that is only an infraction, not a criminal accusation. Azeez v. City of New York, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32345 (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2019).

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abandonment, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.