Suit over sexual harassment by teacher engaging in sexual relationship with a student in high school stated a claim under Title IX because a student is presumed to not be able to consent. The student’s Fourth Amendment claim on the same act at least survives summary judgment, too, on a claim of “bodily integrity.” Jeanette v. Pottsgrove Sch. Dist., 501 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Pa. 2007):<\/p>\n
Section 1983 is a vehicle by which a plaintiff can assert a claim against a person who, acting under color of state law, deprives the plaintiff of a constitutional right. 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Oakes violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures and her Fourteenth Amendment due process right to bodily integrity. See U.S. Const. Amd. IV (providing protection from “unreasonable searches and seizures”); Stoneking II,<\/em> 882 F.2d at 726-27 (holding that a student has a Fourteenth Amendment due process right to be free from intrusions of his bodily integrity, including “a right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers”). Oakes does not contest the assertion that he was acting under color of state law.<\/p>\n
Oakes’s defense is that, in having sex with Plaintiff, he did not “seize” her or violate her right to bodily integrity because she consented to the sex. However, Plaintiff, as a student in Oakes’s class, lacked the capacity to consent to engage in sexual conduct with him. Therefore, Plaintiff’s \u00a7 1983 claims against Oakes will survive summary judgment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant’s common law wife had the apparent authority to consent to a search for individuals to remove from the premises. Only after this protect sweep began and contraband was found did she seek to revoke consent, and then it was too late. United States v. Gocha, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57906 (N.D. Iowa August 8, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Traffic violation justified defendant’s stop, and furtive movements in the car was probable cause to search for what was being hidden because the officers already had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was involved in drug trafficking. United States v. Bowden, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57858 (E.D. Mo. August 8, 2007).*<\/p>\n
Officers had consent to enter plus probable cause for an entry and arrest on a state arrest warrant for the defendant when he was seen in the premises when the blinds were pulled back. United States v. Craig, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58191 (S.D. W.Va. August 8, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading