\u201cThe District Court nevertheless determined that there was no constitutional violation because the officers had the right to arrest the Appellants under New Jersey law for failing to provide identification. But that conclusion puts an alleged violation of state law after the alleged violation of constitutional law.\u201d The district court is reversed; a claim was stated. Mouzone v. Ahlert, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7196 (3d Cir. Mar. 27, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Complaint didn\u2019t state sufficient facts to sue the city for alleged Fourth Amendment violations: \u201cSure, the City has evidence of 207 instances of current instances of code violations. And, for purposes of municipality liability, evidence of 207 instances is probably enough to constitute a widespread practice if they are similar instances. But the plaintiffs don’t provide enough\u2014or any\u2014factual detail in these 207 instances to show that these instances are similar to what occurred in at plaintiff’s properties. Perhaps in these instances the property owners consented to a code search. Perhaps the City had administrative warrants to perform a code search. Perhaps the City had a valid exception to the warrant requirement. Or perhaps the portion of these other properties wasn’t “searched” because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy where the alleged search occurred. Point being, the plaintiffs’ 207 instances in their complaint lack the \u2018specific facts \u2026 point[ing] to the specific violation in question.\u2019 Therefore, the Court dismisses plaintiffs’ section 1983 claim against the City.\u201d Arterra Apartments, LLC v. City of Dallas, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53543 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe District Court nevertheless determined that there was no constitutional violation because the officers had the right to arrest the Appellants under New Jersey law for failing to provide identification. But that conclusion puts an alleged violation of state law … Continue reading