C.D.Cal.: Handcuffing an inmate is not a 4A violation

“Plaintiff’s only purported basis for a Fourth Amendment claim is a vague assertion that ‘handcuff/restraints = false report.’ (Compl. at 6). Liberally construed, this appears to suggest that Plaintiff allegedly was seized without sufficient cause. In the prison context, however, Plaintiff’s temporary placement in hand and leg restraints did not rise to a Fourth Amendment violation.” Stalling v. Castellano, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195651 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2025).

In this case, officers got a warrant for a business’s Nest videos to show a crime. Campbell v. State, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 839 (Oct. 2, 2025).*

Defendant’s patdown during this traffic stop was by consent. State v. Mack, 2025 Mo. App. LEXIS 651 (Sep. 29, 2025).*

Defendant doesn’t get access to the unredacted search warrant papers that could reveal the CI’s identity. People v. Bleyden, 2025 NY Slip Op 05197 (1st Dept. Sep. 30, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Prison and jail searches, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.