Collateral estoppel did not bar plaintiff’s \u00a7 1983 case. Probable cause was found in the state case, but it was later dismissed. There was no privity with the officer in the underlying case, and plaintiff had no incentive to appeal since he won his criminal case. Rickert v. City of Poulsbo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10403 (W.D. Wash. January 29, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Consent to search in this case may have been coerced, but the law is not crystal clear because no case is like it because of the unique facts. There was, however, a consent to search form involved that plaintiffs signed, and all this adds up to qualified immunity. Eidson v. Owens<\/a>, 515 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n Consent was found valid because the defendant’s version was “wholly lacking in credibility.” The defense argument that somebody would not consent knowing that drugs would be found does not follow [and case law and experence show otherwise]. United States v. Babundo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10505 (D. Me. February 11, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading