D.Minn.: Warrantless ion scan of car door handle was reasonable

A DNA ion scan of a car door handle was reasonable, relying on United States v. Jones, 2024 WL 1810220 (D. Minn. Apr. 25, 2024), finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in an ion scan on an apartment door from a common hallway. Also, defendant lacks standing in a place searched: “Mr. Cone-Wade has not shown a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of the places searched or the items seized, nor has he even argued that he has one.” United States v. Dirksmeyer, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155086 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2024).

“The parties do not dispute that Smith acted within his discretionary authority. And Smith has waived any issue concerning whether he violated ‘clearly established’ law at the time of the alleged violation because he failed to raise it in his opening brief on appeal.” The “any crime” rule for malicious prosecution was not clearly established at the time of the arrest, and that means judgment for defendants. Sorrells v. Dodd, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21914 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024).*

On a mistaken identify arrest by the USMS, the information that the officers were relying on gave them reasonable grounds to believe he was the guy wanted. Therefore, this was a reasonable mistake and no liability. Henry v. Essex Cty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21925 (3d Cir. Aug. 29, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, DNA, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.