Police seized plaintiff\u2019s car and held it without justification for nine weeks. Plaintiff\u2019s states a claim under the Fifth Amendment, but not the Fourth. Kelly v. Bell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74807 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA search-warrant advisory that deviates from the exact wording in Minn. Stat. \u00a7 171.177, subd. 1 (2022), is insufficient to sustain the revocation of a person’s driving privileges if it is an inaccurate statement of law, misleading, or confusing when considered in its context as a whole.\u201d Nash v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 2023 Minn. App. LEXIS 151 (May 1, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cICE agents, like all law enforcement officers, must comply with the Fourth Amendment. \u2026 Under the Fourth Amendment, ICE agents \u2018may not stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes \u2026 unless they have reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.\u2019 \u2026 ICE agents are also required to comply with 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.8, a regulation setting out enforcement standards which reflect the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions. Perez Cruz v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting immigration enforcement regulatory standards are at least as stringent as the Fourth Amendment).\u201d Andrade-Tafolla v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74908 (D. Or. Apr. 19, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Police seized plaintiff\u2019s car and held it without justification for nine weeks. Plaintiff\u2019s states a claim under the Fifth Amendment, but not the Fourth. Kelly v. Bell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74807 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2023). \u201cA search-warrant advisory … Continue reading