CA6: Def’s getting CI’s call and driving to controlled buy and home was nexus for SW

Defendant’s being in his home when he received a call from the CI for a controlled buy and then his driving to the buy and back was sufficient nexus. United States v. Badley, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33031 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2023).

Defendant’s search incident to arrest for an only citable offense under California law doesn’t control the Fourth Amendment analysis. Virginia v. Moore. This search incident was valid. United States v. Estrella, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33048 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023).*

“Gross alleges that Cairo ‘suddenly’ and ‘violently’ struck her in her ‘visibly pregnant’ stomach while she was moving toward her neighbor’s doorway to conduct a welfare check. … The blow was targeted at a discernibly vulnerable part of Gross’s body and was powerful enough to cause immediate pain and placental hemorrhaging. These facts are sufficient to demonstrate an objective intent to restrain Gross’s movement. See Torres, 141 S. Ct. at 998 ….” The officer was on notice that striking an unarmed person could be excessive, without there being a case with a pregnant victim. Gross v. Cairo, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33055 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Nexus, Qualified immunity, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.