A lien on property here is not a Fourth Amendment seizure. Trident Steel Corp. v. Siffin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43138 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 15, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAgainst that backdrop, a reasonable officer could certainly have interpreted Mr. Harris’s sudden lurch as the commencement of yet another attack. As we have explained\u2014and as the bodycam video confirms\u2014Mr. Harris’s lurch was not the staggering, slow-to-get-up tossing of a dazed or injured athlete. It was the jolt of one jarred awake or springing into sudden, urgent action. In the blink of an eye, Mr. Harris’s upper body rose off the ground, his legs kicked, and his arms swooped down toward his torso. Could he have been working up the momentum to stand or slide toward one of the guns on the ground? Might he have been reaching for a third gun in his pants? Or was he instead just writhing in pain? We can’t be sure what Mr. Harris was doing. And that is precisely the point: \u2018[A]n officer is not required to wait until an armed and dangerous felon has drawn a bead on [her] or others before using deadly force.\u2019 Montoute v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181, 185 (11th Cir. 1997); \u2026\u201d The officers get qualified immunity. Harris-Billups v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5951 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A successor 2255 petition based on defendant\u2019s arrest warrant wasn\u2019t a valid basis. In re Cook, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5965 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A lien on property here is not a Fourth Amendment seizure. Trident Steel Corp. v. Siffin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43138 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 15, 2023). \u201cAgainst that backdrop, a reasonable officer could certainly have interpreted Mr. Harris’s sudden lurch … Continue reading