\u201cThe Court concludes that the encounter transformed into a seizure only moments later, when Deputy Baptista asked Defendant to step out of the vehicle and have a seat on the curb. Although these requests were phrased as questions, they would have conveyed to a reasonable person that Deputy Baptista-who had possession of the identification card-would not allow the person to drive away or otherwise leave.\u201d There was, however, reasonable suspicion. United States v. Guevara-Lopez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40869 (D.Ariz. Mar. 8, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The frisk of plaintiff\u2019s groin area was too invasive and survives \u00a7 1983 summary judgment at least in part. Mwimanzi v. Wilson<\/a>, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40896 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant\u2019s guilty plea waived his Fourth Amendment claim. United States v. Fluid<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6039 (4th Cir. Mar. 8, 2022) (pro se points to Anders brief).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThe Court concludes that the encounter transformed into a seizure only moments later, when Deputy Baptista asked Defendant to step out of the vehicle and have a seat on the curb. Although these requests were phrased as questions, they would … Continue reading