Plaintiff sued for injunctive relief and not damages, and the district court held that he lacked standing to sue because of the speculative nature of a recurrence. Martinez v. Marino, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44421 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2007):<\/p>\n
Martinez fails to satisfy the pleading requirements to show he may be entitled to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court has suggested that a plaintiff, who alleged he had been choked by police, might be able to seek injunctive relief if he could make “the incredible assertion either (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation, or for questioning, or (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons<\/em>, 461 U.S. 95, 105, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983). The plaintiff in Lyons failed to meet this heightened standard and Martinez does as well. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Plaintiff’s version of what he did to get arrested gave the officers qualified immunity. Benton-El v. Odom, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44270 (M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007).*<\/p>\n
“In the case at bar, the information was obtained from an informant whom the agent had known for 3 years and who had previously given information that lead to at least 8 arrests. There is no evidence whatsoever that the informant was unreliable or provided inaccurate information at that time or at any time in the past. Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, there is no evidence of any reason to not rely on the information provided by the well-known, trusted source.” United States v. Benson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44308 (M.D. Ga. June 19, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Controlled delivery of a container load of drugs led to probable cause to arrest the recipients and search their vehicles. United States v. Pulido-Tejedo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44312 (S.D. Ga. June 18, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s argument that the USMJ lacked a substantial basis for finding probable cause on a corroborated informant was rejected. United States v. Crawford, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44417 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2007):<\/p>\n
Taken together, these corroborated details, in addition to numerous other pieces of evidence described in the affidavit, supported the agent’s statement that the CS had provided reliable information in the past. The totality of the evidence clearly created a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause and was more than sufficient for the issuance of a warrant to search Rah’s Fashion Boutique. Accordingly, we are compelled to reject Defendant’s argument that the evidence should be suppressed for lack of probable cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading