\u201cPlaintiff does not allege that the search itself violated his rights but, rather, it is the recording of the search that he finds objectionable.\u201d \u201c[U]sing a camera to record a strip search in a prison does not, by itself, amount to a constitutional violation.\u201d Webb v. May, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3327 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPlaintiff’s allegations [against a supermarket chain] recount a \u2018consensual encounter,\u2019 not a \u2018seizure\u2019 under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d \u201cEven if the encounter could be classified as a seizure, the Court finds that it was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.\u201d Reece v. H.E.B. Grocery Store LP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3379 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s \u201cgeneralized description alone would not support reasonable suspicion; but the description was not the only basis upon which Officer Farley suspected Mr. Torres-Miranda to be one of the robbery suspects.\u201d Defendant\u2019s furtive movements with it added to reasonable suspicion. United States v. Torres-Miranda, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3343 (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cPlaintiff does not allege that the search itself violated his rights but, rather, it is the recording of the search that he finds objectionable.\u201d \u201c[U]sing a camera to record a strip search in a prison does not, by itself, amount … Continue reading