CT: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases, here one over animal neglect

The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to civil cases, here an action over who gets possession of neglected animals. State ex rel. Dunn v. Connelly, 2024 Conn. App. LEXIS 268 (Oct. 8, 2024).

This is a DUI on federal property. Even if the Georgia implied consent law wasn’t exactly applied, it doesn’t matter under the federal statute. United States v. Raleigh, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185544 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2024).*

“It is not clear why any plaintiff’s lawyer would bring this action. The Fourth Amendment claim presents a classic case of officers having to make a call in the field about who to believe and who not to believe. The overwhelming weight of the field evidence supported the officers’ call. The First Amendment claim is equally without substance as defendants had an obvious legitimate penological objective in keeping plaintiff in shackles at the hospital. Whether plaintiff thinks he is pursuing justice or compensation or both, he should have been talked out of bringing this case because this unfortunate family has enough problems without having to assume the additional burden of non-viable litigation.” S.M.N. Islam v. Tirelli, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185559 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.