N.D.Ohio: Def’s suppression motion loss precludes his § 1983 case on same issue

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint that OnStar allegedly illegally tracked his vehicle was already decided against him in his criminal case. The issue is precluded here. Lenhart v. Savetski, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109462 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2021).

The collection of defendant’s CSLI was in accord with law at the time, so it was admissible at trial. United States v. Canada, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 17432 (2d Cir. June 11, 2021).*

A 7 am 911 call about an unresponsive man in a parked car with two flat tires justified police opening the car door. “The driver had one foot on the brake and one foot outside the car, and he was not immediately responsive to the officers’ attempts to rouse him. On those facts, an objectively reasonable officer would have thought that something was very amiss and that the driver was likely in need of emergency aid — particularly because while attempting to rouse the individual, the officers saw that the handle of a knife seemed to be jutting out from the driver’s stomach area. Under these circumstances, the exigent circumstances exception clearly applies, and the officers did not violate Harris’ Fourth Amendment rights by holding his arms still while they better investigated what was going on.” United States v. Harris, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109728 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2021).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.