\u201cPlaintiff may not maintain an action on behalf for her child for this removal because \u2018Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which \u2026 may not be vicariously asserted.\u2019 Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969); Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127, 143 (2d Cir. 2011) (\u2018A Fourth Amendment child-seizure claim belongs only to the child, not to the parent\u2019); \u2026\u201d Reeves v. New York, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42690 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2022).* See Grae-El v. City of Seattle, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43007 (W.D.Wash. Mar. 10, 2022)* (same).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s version of the facts of her being taken down and injured during a disorderly conduct arrest overcame qualified immunity, so there was no jurisdiction for this appeal. Windsor-Hart v. Genesee Twp.<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6260 (6th Cir. Mar. 9, 2022).* Compare King v. City of Columbus, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6305 (6th Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (factual dispute intertwined, so this is referred to the merits panel).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cPlaintiff may not maintain an action on behalf for her child for this removal because \u2018Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which \u2026 may not be vicariously asserted.\u2019 Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969); Southerland v. City … Continue reading