CA5: No excessive force without a seizure; here, ptf told to “get back”

“At no point was D.J. prevented from leaving the scene—rather, he was repeatedly asked to do so, to ‘get back’ and move away while Deputy Moring was securing the perimeter. True, he was prevented from further approaching Perkins and Deputy Hart, but that was the officers’ prerogative to secure the scene and did not infringe on D.J.’s Fourth Amendment rights. … [¶] Thus, even accepting D.J.’s version of the facts as true, he cannot prevail on a claim of excessive force because there was no violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.” Perkins v. Hart, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31734 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2023).

The government didn’t timely raise standing against defendant’s probation search in the home of a third person he was visiting. Instead, the court finds attenuation of any allegedly illegal conduct. The search was by consent after an explicit warning of Fourth Amendment rights to the homeowner who wasn’t even the target of the search. It was clearly voluntary as to her. United States v. Gilbert, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31531 (11th Cir. Nov. 29, 2023).*

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases. This circuit hasn’t ruled on inevitable discovery in civil cases, but other circuits let it in. It will be here. Thomas v. McCabe, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213252 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.