{"id":4769,"date":"2011-02-01T07:39:14","date_gmt":"2010-10-13T00:12:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-10-12T00:04:32","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4769","title":{"rendered":"AK: Probation arrest of plaintiff on suspicion of theft shortly proved unfounded was not a separate Fourth Amendment violation because she was always in their legal “custody”"},"content":{"rendered":"

A probationer was detained for investigation of theft from her employer and returned to prison. After a few days it was determined that she was not a thief and she was released. She sued the Alaska DOC for her seizure, and the court found that her \u201cseizure\u201d did not violate the Fourth Amendment because she was actually still in their custody. Diaz v. State, Department of Corrections<\/a>, 239 P.3d 723 (Alas. 2010)*:<\/p>\n

We affirm the superior court\u2019s decision because: (1) Diaz\u2019s officer-escorted trip to and interrogation at the travel agency did not implicate her Fourth Amendment rights as she was already in DOC custody when the DOC officers \u201cseized\u201d her; (2) the DOC officers\u2019 actions, although disturbing, did not \u201cshock the conscience\u201d as required for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Diaz\u2019s return to prison, her day of segregation from the general population, and the two days of telephone restrictions did not deprive her of a liberty interest in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because her freedom was not restrained in excess of her sentence and she did not experience an atypical or significant hardship in comparison to ordinary prison life; and (4) the private detective and his agency are not liable for conspiring with state officials to violate Diaz’s constitutional rights because no such violation occurred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The officer\u2019s mistake of law as to defendant\u2019s use of the turn signal made the stop without reasonable suspicion, so the trial court suppression order is affirmed. State v. Ruelas<\/a>, 327 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. App. \u2013 El Paso 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4769","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}