Defendant had some connection to the premises, but his disassociation from the premises when asked about it by the police showed his lack of standing. \u201cTo resolve his motion to suppress, however, the Court need not determine whether these possessory and property interests were sufficient to provide Mr. Beal with the reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to confer standing to challenge this evidence. Instead, the Court determines that Mr. Beal’s repeated statements disassociating himself from Apartment B prior to the search constituted an abandonment of any expectation of privacy which he may have previously possessed inside the apartment. As a result, Mr. Beal lacks standing to challenge the search and the warrant issued for the search of Apartment B.\u201d United States v. Beal, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116480 (E.D. Ark. June 30, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOfficer Broaddus did not unconstitutionally search Johnson’s cross-body bag [suspecting a weapon], discovering [a Glock] inside. Additionally, Officer Broaddus and his colleagues would have inevitably discovered the evidence in the car. Thus, the Court will deny the Motion to Suppress as to that evidence and the evidence discovered inside of Johnson’s bag. The Court will also deny the Motion to Suppress as to statements Johnson made before being handcuffed and statements he made after being mirandized.\u201d United States v. Johnson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116395 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s claim of excessive force during a search of his house fails. \u201cHere, two officers pointed guns at Johnson for about five minutes\u2014only from the time they arrived until he was secured in handcuffs. Though they used vulgar language and told him to shut [\u2018the f\u2019] up, \u2018the Supreme Court has never held that the Fourth Amendment protects against\u2019 rude behavior.\u201d Johnson v. Gullickson<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18325 (7th Cir. July 1, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant had some connection to the premises, but his disassociation from the premises when asked about it by the police showed his lack of standing. \u201cTo resolve his motion to suppress, however, the Court need not determine whether these possessory … Continue reading