In a civil rights case, \u201cEvidence of racial profiling (i.e., bias) by Trooper Padilla would tend to make the fact to which he is expected to testify (i.e., that Plaintiff failed the roadside sobriety tests and thus there was probable cause to arrest her) less probable in the eyes of the jury. That fact is also of consequence in determining the Fourth Amendment claim, and it is therefore relevant.\u201d Ransaw v. Padilla, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83096 (D. Colo. May 11, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment he claimed was a workplace. He was on electronic monitoring on parole and that did not show him there the night before the search. Moreover, there others could come and go and there was no exclusive use and it was often left unlocked. The subjective expectation of privacy if there was one, wasn\u2019t enough here. (A motion to dismiss that is really a motion to suppress will be construed to be such.) United States v. Nichols, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82124 (E.D. Ark. May 10, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court can\u2019t say that the district court was clearly erroneous in finding reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop on this record. United States v. Rodriguez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11550 (10th Cir. May 11, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a civil rights case, \u201cEvidence of racial profiling (i.e., bias) by Trooper Padilla would tend to make the fact to which he is expected to testify (i.e., that Plaintiff failed the roadside sobriety tests and thus there was probable … Continue reading