E.D.Cal.: “No viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant.”

“No viable Takings Clause claim occurs when property has been disturbed by a lawful search warrant. See AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (‘so long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to some power other than eminent domain, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment’) (citing Bennis, 516 U.S. at 453). Moreover, BPD’s alleged negligent destruction of the Property does not satisfy the ‘taken for public use’ element of a Takings Clause claim. …” Lemongas Enter., Inc. v. City of Bakersfield, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112389 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2023).

“Next, while we normally would address whether the State’s acquisition of Figueroa-Sanabria’s historical CSLI was a warrantless Fourth Amendment search, and if so, whether the exclusionary rule applies, we need not reach these issues to resolve this case. That is because the allegedly erroneous introduction of the CSLI evidence is harmless.” Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 2023 Fla. LEXIS 978 (June 29, 2023).*

Defendant’s interaction with the police was consensual. United States v. Smith, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16530 (5th Cir. June 29, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Consent, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.