S.D.Ohio: Overseizure was slight and not prejudicial nor “abrasive”

The fact some small things were seized under a documents warrant did not rise to the level of an “abrasive” search (United States v. Searp, 586 F.2d 1117 (6th Cir. 1978)) justifying suppression of all that was within the warrant. The fact the warrant was not present for the search was a potential Rule 41 violation, but it was not a constitutional issue, and defendant did not show prejudice. United States v. Sadler, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5207 (S.D. Ohio January 17, 2012).*

Merely having to post bond wasn’t shown here to be a real Fourth Amendment seizure issue. Moreno-Medina v. Toledo, 458 Fed. Appx. 4 (1st Cir. 2012) (unpublished)*:

Construing the plaintiffs’ complaint in the light most favorable to them, the district court speculated that the only potentially cognizable post-arraignment deprivation Moreno suffered was having to post a $10,000.00 bond. The court concluded that, because Moreno was able to post the bond and was not detained, the bond was a “run-of-the-mill” pre-trial release condition and did not amount to a Fourth Amendment seizure. Nieves, 241 F.3d at 55; see also Harrington, 610 F.3d at 32-33. Because the plaintiffs have not put the issue squarely before us, we need not address today whether a post-arraignment release on bond, standing alone, could ever approximate a Fourth Amendment seizure for purposes of a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim.