Plaintiffs run a bar, and they complain they were required to have police on duty and in the premises on certain nights. Without an allegation that the officers entered any part of the business that is private [such as an office or back room], they don\u2019t state a Fourth Amendment claim. East Coast Serv. Indus. Co. v. N.H. State Liquor Comm’n, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170490 (D. N.H. Sept. 17, 2020), reaffirmed 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28922 (D. N.H. Feb. 17, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On objection to the R&R, the district court viewed the in-car and dashcam videos of the interaction between defendant and the officer. There\u2019s disagreement on exactly what was said, but, on the totality, the court finds consent. \u201cIn sum, this case highlights why context matters. Examining the conversation in its entirety, this Court finds that Leddon consented to a search of his car.\u201d Moreover, defendant had a probation search waiver on file. United States v. Leddon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28491 (D.S.D. Feb. 16, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Plaintiffs run a bar, and they complain they were required to have police on duty and in the premises on certain nights. Without an allegation that the officers entered any part of the business that is private [such as an … Continue reading