In a regulatory inspection, \u201cAn order not to leave the business premises for two hours can reasonably be understood to constitute a detention as well as a seizure. Although the inspection was conducted according to regulatory authority, the statutory provision put forth by the Defendants does not expressly authorize inspectors to detain persons on the premises during inspections. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim of false imprisonment against Defendant Stockstill.\u201d The plaintiffs stated a claim. Nguyen v. La. State Bd. of Cosmetology, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35214 (M.D.La. March 20, 2015).<\/p>\n
When defendant refused a breath test for BAC, the officer could apply for a search warrant. Massey v. State<\/a>, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 170 (March 20, 2015).*<\/p>\n Police observed the buy from defendant\u2019s house. A 72 hour wait to get the search warrant didn\u2019t make it stale. State v. Evans<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-1022, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 969 (8th Dist. March 19, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a regulatory inspection, \u201cAn order not to leave the business premises for two hours can reasonably be understood to constitute a detention as well as a seizure. Although the inspection was conducted according to regulatory authority, the statutory provision … Continue reading