D.Nev.: Clearly established state statute doesn’t translate to clearly established constitutional law

Clearly established state statute doesn’t translate to clearly established constitutional law for § 1983 qualified immunity purposes. Brown v. Tromba, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149020 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2023).*

“In their reply brief the OSA Defendants cite cases concerning a reasonable expectation of privacy in the context of warrantless searches and seizures. … These cases have no bearing on Plaintiff’s ability to bring a claim for trespass.” Femhealth United States, Inc. v. Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149106 n.8 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 23, 2023).*

There was probable cause to believe drugs were in defendant’s car, and that supported its search after his arrest. United States v. Garay, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149327 n.12 (D.R.I. Aug. 22, 2023).*

“A defendant challenging the admissibility of her statements bears the burden of establishing that she was in custody when she made them. … Whether a suspect is ‘in custody’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment looks beyond the Fourth Amendment’s free-to-leave seizure inquiry to whether, under a totality of the circumstances, ‘a reasonable person would have understood [her] freedom of action to have been curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.’” United States v. Ruoho, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149235 (N.D. Ala. July 13, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147228 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 22, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Custody, Qualified immunity, Search incident, Trespass. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.