D.N.H.: Police working forced security in a bar open area aren’t violating 4A

Plaintiffs run a bar, and they complain they were required to have police on duty and in the premises on certain nights. Without an allegation that the officers entered any part of the business that is private [such as an office or back room], they don’t state a Fourth Amendment claim. East Coast Serv. Indus. Co. v. N.H. State Liquor Comm’n, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170490 (D. N.H. Sept. 17, 2020), reaffirmed 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28922 (D. N.H. Feb. 17, 2021).

On objection to the R&R, the district court viewed the in-car and dashcam videos of the interaction between defendant and the officer. There’s disagreement on exactly what was said, but, on the totality, the court finds consent. “In sum, this case highlights why context matters. Examining the conversation in its entirety, this Court finds that Leddon consented to a search of his car.” Moreover, defendant had a probation search waiver on file. United States v. Leddon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28491 (D.S.D. Feb. 16, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.