E.D.N.C.: No REP in one’s own property in a stolen car

Defendant was in a stolen car, so no standing at all under Byrd. (The convoluted issue of search incident after Gant with Fourth Circuit authority never revisited is avoided for now.) United States v. Tyson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15809 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2026).

Protective sweep justified the brief warrantless entry into the house. Then the warrant was obtained. United States v. Kent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16593 (W.D. La. Jan. 5, 2026).*

“Thus, by the time of Matusak’s arrest on February 1, 2018, it was clearly established that officers may not use significant force against arrestees who are compliant or non-resistant and non-threatening. While our case law specifically identified pepper spray and tasers as significant force, any reasonable police officer would know that fist and knee strikes to a suspect’s abdomen also constitute significant force. After all, ‘[a]n officer is not entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that the law is not clearly established every time a novel method is used to inflict injury.’ Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217, 237 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).” Matusak v. Daminski, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2526 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.