CA7: No property damage claim from executing SW

Relying on Johnson v. Manitowoc County, 635 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2011), plaintiff’s claim for property damage from executing a search warrant is foreclosed. Hadley v. City of South Bend, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26040 (7th Cir. Oct. 7, 2025). Update: Reason: This Indiana City Doesn’t Have To Pay an Innocent Mom $16,000 After Police Wrecked Her Home, Court Rules by Billy Binion (“Law enforcement launched 30 tear gas canisters into Amy Hadley’s home, smashed windows, ransacked furniture, destroyed security cameras, and more. The government gave her nothing.”)

FedEx opening a package taken from the conveyor belt was a private search. Harris v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198271 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2025).*

Defendant’s stop for no LPN was reasonable despite possible pretext. “Based on the credible testimony of Officer Tucker, the Court concludes he had probable cause to believe that Mr. Walker had committed a traffic violation, and consequently, the stop of the motorcycle was constitutionally permissible even if the primary reason for the stop was related to some other investigation.” United States v. Walker, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198218 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 4, 2025).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Pretext, Private search, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.