Requiring plaintiff, who said he was positive for Covid-19, be tested before putting him in hospital was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It\u2019s less intrusive than swabbing for DNA. Alternatively, qualified immunity applies. Mercado v. Columbus Reg’l Hosp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214267 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer tugging on defendant\u2019s sleeve was not a seizure, and defendant then fled. United States v. Scott, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32887 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cStart with whether the officers had probable cause to believe that Dunbar lived in unit 318. An officer\u00a0testified that \u2018confidential source information\u2019 and \u2018investigational measures\u2019 led the task force to 2249 Elm Street. \u2026 After seeing a picture of Dunbar, the apartment managers confirmed that he resided in unit 318 and handed over a key to the unit. That created a fair probability Dunbar lived there. [\u00b6] The officers also had probable cause to believe that they would find Dunbar inside. \u2026\u201d United States v. Dunbar<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32858 (6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Requiring plaintiff, who said he was positive for Covid-19, be tested before putting him in hospital was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It\u2019s less intrusive than swabbing for DNA. Alternatively, qualified immunity applies. Mercado v. Columbus Reg’l Hosp., 2022 U.S. … Continue reading