Plaintiff operated a gym entered by the police for an administrative search during Covid when it should have been temporarily closed under a state executive order. They accessed it with a keycard from the prior owner who sold it years ago. The keycard created some reasonable expectation of privacy in the commercial premises from such entries under Maryland v. Macon. Alexander Indus. v. Town of Holly Ridge, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17108 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The traffic stop ended up diverting from its mission without reasonable suspicion to have defendant remove his shoes and socks, and drugs were found. The government concedes that was unlawful. Removing that information from the affidavit for the warrant for his car left no probable cause. United States v. Baker, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16886 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 31, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 1983 complaint over the searches that led to his conviction don\u2019t necessarily call into question his conviction, so they aren\u2019t Heck barred. Cooney v. Arkansas<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2839 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plaintiff operated a gym entered by the police for an administrative search during Covid when it should have been temporarily closed under a state executive order. They accessed it with a keycard from the prior owner who sold it years … Continue reading