Plaintiff \u201cXie worked as a professor and researcher at MDA for several years.\u201d MDA believed he computer manipulated a document submitted to the state for expense reimbursement and opened an investigation. That led to search warrants for his electronics. There was a typographic error on the warrant that showed it executed at 1:04 am rather than 1:04 pm which was accurate. The parties agree there was a mistake. That typo can\u2019t form the basis of a \u00a7 1983 claim against the officer. His false arrest claim fails. There was probable cause for it even though the criminal case later was dismissed. Xie v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37005 (5th Cir. Dec. 15, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not ineffective assistance for defense counsel to not raise a meritless Fourth Amendment claim. Clark v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238976 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 15, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A wildlife officer responding to a call to a poaching tip line encountered \u201cTed from Minnesota\u201d about taking an antlered deer. The stop and encounter was with reasonable suspicion because the officer already knew defendant had an out-of-state hunting license for only unantlered deer. Then he saw in plain view marijuana and paraphernalia in defendant\u2019s truck. State v. Buselmeier<\/a>, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 1057 (Dec. 15, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plaintiff \u201cXie worked as a professor and researcher at MDA for several years.\u201d MDA believed he computer manipulated a document submitted to the state for expense reimbursement and opened an investigation. That led to search warrants for his electronics. There … Continue reading