The Fourth Amendment claim that police entered the bar area of the plaintiff\u2019s business because of police calls fails because it was open to the public. The selective enforcement claim fails on the facts. There is no First Amendment right for \u201cswingers\u201d to have sex in plaintiff\u2019s bar area. Beverly Hills Suites LLC v. Town of Windsor Locks, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133137 (D.Conn. September 30, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant consent claim on his cell phone search fails–it depended on claimed prior illegality which was already found legal. United States v. Bazzelle, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131886 (N.D.Ill. September 30, 2015).*<\/p>\n
The officer asked defendant during a traffic stop if he was armed, and he didn\u2019t answer and was scanning the area like he was about to flee. Defendant also repeatedly asked to get back into the car. The officer had reasonable suspicion for a patdown. State v. Carson<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-4110, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3969 (2d Dist. October 2, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Fourth Amendment claim that police entered the bar area of the plaintiff\u2019s business because of police calls fails because it was open to the public. The selective enforcement claim fails on the facts. There is no First Amendment right … Continue reading