There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one\u2019s name. Livingstone v. Hugo Boss Store, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165848 (D.N.J. Sept. 1, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers working off duty security came upon decedent\u2019s car at night parked across parking spaces, and he appeared to be asleep with a gun in his lap or waistband. Startled, he woke up and started to pull the gun. One of them said \u201cdon\u2019t do it,\u201d but he continued and they shot and killed him. \u201cViewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Murray as the nonmoving party, no rational jury could find Officer Galyon did not reasonably perceive Mr. Simms was drawing his firearm. Although there are some discrepancies between Officer Galyon\u2019s and Officer Escobar\u2019s testimony, they are consistent on the key point: Mr. Simms was reaching for his firearm. No record evidence, direct or circumstantial, suggests otherwise.\u201d Summary judgment properly granted. Redd v. City Of Okla. City<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26396 (10th Cir. Sept. 1, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one\u2019s name. Livingstone v. Hugo Boss Store, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165848 (D.N.J. Sept. 1, 2021). Officers working off duty security came upon decedent\u2019s car at night parked across parking spaces, and … Continue reading