{"id":445,"date":"2006-12-11T11:04:48","date_gmt":"2006-09-23T10:42:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2017-09-17T13:42:51","modified_gmt":"2017-09-17T18:42:51","slug":"en-us-178","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=445","title":{"rendered":"3d Cir.: Whren does not alter RS standard"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whren<\/em> does not alter the reasonable suspicion standard; it merely explains it. United States v. Delfin-Colina, 464 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. September 22, 2006):<\/p>\n

While this court has not directly addressed the question whether Whren has changed the law of traffic stops, we find persuasive the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Lopez-Soto.<\/em> As discussed in that opinion, there is little in Whren<\/em> to suggest that the Court meant to create a new probable cause standard in the context of investigatory traffic stops. Instead, the Court in Whren was responding to the situation before it — one in which the officer obviously possessed probable cause. Indeed, though the Court has never explicitly returned to the question post-Whren, the Court has later made mention of brief, investigatory stops of “persons or vehicles” in the context of reasonable suspicion. United States v. Arvizu,<\/em> 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). This lends support to our understanding that Whren was not conceived as altering the longstanding reasonable suspicion standard recognized in the traffic-stop setting. Thus, we now join our sister circuits in holding that the Terry reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Fourth Amendment applies to entry on to real property. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 24048 (4th Cir. September 22, 2006):<\/p>\n

The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable seizures clearly extend to real property. See, e.g., United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property,<\/em> 510 U.S. 43, 52 (1993) (noting that the Fourth Amendment applies to the seizure of a four-acre parcel of land with a house); Freeman v. City of Dallas,<\/em> 242 F.3d 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (“[T]he City seized the Freemans’ real property for demolition.”). Nevertheless, the district court held that Presley had failed to allege a Fourth Amendment violation. The court offered two grounds for its holding; we find neither persuasive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In NY, a “no bill” from a grand jury is not a finding of no probable cause. Houghton v. Culver, 452 F. Supp. 2d 212 (W.D. N.Y. September 21, 2006):<\/p>\n

I note that the fact that the grand jury returned a “no bill” is not dispositive of the issue of whether defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. See Phillips v. Corbin,<\/em> 132 F.3d 867, 869 (2d Cir. 1998) (“the grand jury’s refusal to indict Phillips does not, as a matter of law, establish that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest her”); Vonritter v. Town of Bethel,<\/em> Connecticut, No. 91-CV-612, 1993 WL 83291, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar.15, 1993) (finding existence of probable cause to arrest although three months later the grand jury returned a “no bill”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=445"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/445\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29135,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/445\/revisions\/29135"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}