The petitioner doesn\u2019t show that the civil investigative demand in a fraud case was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment or that it could not reach accommodation with the government. In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 21mc24 WJ\/SCY, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216377 (D.N.M. Nov. 9, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn sum, the district court erred in drawing conclusions about Mr. Harmon’s movements that were contrary to the Estate’s allegations and were not blatantly contradicted by the record including the video footage. Based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable trier of fact could view Officer Fox’s actions as objectively unreasonable. Accordingly, the Estate has established a plausible claim that Mr. Harmon’s right to be free from excessive use of force under the Fourth Amendment was violated.\u201d Estate of Harmon v. Salt Lake City<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33388 (10th Cir. Nov. 10, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The petitioner doesn\u2019t show that the civil investigative demand in a fraud case was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment or that it could not reach accommodation with the government. In re Civil Investigative Demand No. 21mc24 WJ\/SCY, 2021 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading