CA7: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases

Plaintiff was arrested for possession of brass knuckles. The state court suppressed, so the state’s attorney nolle prossed. He sued under 1983. There was probable cause to arrest, and the exclusionary rule [even if the state court was right, which we don’t know] doesn’t apply in civil cases. His malicious prosecution claim fails because there was probable cause, and he indisputably was in possession when arrested. McWilliams v. City of Chicago, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1152 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2022).

Plaintiff stated a claim for unlawful entry into a house to investigate a domestic violence complaint when they knew the assaulter wasn’t inside. Three officers Tased the plaintiff who wasn’t resisting. Oakry v. Tempe, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7872 (D.Ariz. Jan. 14, 2022).*

No case law says that a warrantless arrest on the curtilage is unreasonable or not. Therefore, qualified immunity applies. Seidman v. Colby, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8001 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.